Maria Miller: We have heard my hon. Friends' concerns about nursery funding in their constituencies and I am sure that the Minister is aware of the facts. The dedicated schools grant that local authorities receive to fund free nursery places is under £4 an hour. Is she aware that the National Day Nurseries Association gives examples of where, throughout the country, the cost of staffand overheads alone is nearer £5 an hour? Her transformation fund sets the hourly cost of child care at almost £6 an hour. Little wonder that a report from Camden council says that 90 per cent. of nurseries—

Richard Burden: May I welcome, and draw my right hon. Friend's attention to, the new children's centre in Frankley in my constituency, which will be a great asset to a very deprived part of the area, and also the roll-out of the children's centre programme? However, I draw her attention to the fact that it is important, as thereis availability of capital, for there not to be an over-preoccupation with the physical structures. The ethos of Sure Start—bringing together integrated services and ensuring real responsiveness to local users—is equally, if not more, important.

Vincent Cable: How can the proportion of science students increase when the number, let alone the proportion, of pupils taking A-level maths, further maths, physics and chemistryis declining? Do not the Government accept responsibility for the botched curriculum reform that has led to the decline of specialist science teaching in state schools?

Phil Hope: No. Speaking as a former science teacher, I strongly welcome the new key stage 4 science curriculum. I wish that I was teaching it now, but I am fulfilling my educational role at the Dispatch Box by explaining to Opposition Members that which they clearly do not understand. The new science GCSE has the full support of the Royal Society, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Association for Science Education. If that is notgood enough for hon. Members, in today's edition of  The Times, the high mistress and head of science ofSt. Paul's girls' school writes:
	"we entirely reject the criticisms of Twenty-First Century Science. The approach is challenging, rigorous and, above all, exciting. By linking science to the real world, it embodies the long overdue recognition that science is a dynamic, living subject."
	I am grateful to have had the opportunity to give that lesson to Opposition Members.

Boris Johnson: In spite of what the Minister says, I think that he would acknowledge that 30 per cent. of university physics departments have closed in the last eight years and the numbers studying chemistry have declined by 17 per cent. in the last10 years. Against that background and in light of what he said earlier, I hope that he will support our amendment in the Lords which would entitle every pupil to triple science. Does he agree that we will never inspire our children to study physics as long as, in most of our schools, 80 per cent. of those studying physics are taught by someone with a degree not in physics but more likely in biology? Does he agree that the situation is a disgrace and needs to be remedied?

Alan Johnson: We have concentrated on phonics, but that does not mean that we have ignored the other excellent suggestions in the Rose report. Phonicshas received coverage, and the issues that the hon. Lady mentions have not, but they are a crucial part of the foundation stage. Jim Rose and his people are absolutely right to highlight the importance of listening and speaking skills. In addition, the "social and emotional aspects of learning" project is hugely successful, and is being rolled out across primary schools. The teachers to whom I have spoken think that it is long overdue and will bring about a huge improvement in those soft skills that pupils increasingly need in the modern labour environment.

Robert Goodwill: Does the Minister agree that one key parenting skill, in which school leavers are so often deficient, is the ability to prepare and cook balanced nutritional meals for children? Does he think that more should be done to improve the teaching of cooking skills in schools, which would address children's diets not only for the five meals a week that they eat in school, but for the 16 meals that they eat in the home?

Jim Knight: I look forward to visiting one or two of the schools that my right hon. Friend mentioned. Leicester is in the first wave of "Building Schools for the Future". There are 16 schools in the project, four of which are in phase 1, so plenty of others beyond the two that he mentioned that can look forward to the substantial investment that we are putting into schools.

David Willetts: Has the Minister heard the concerns expressed by Jamie Oliver—orSt. Jamie, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) calls him—about the schools building programme? He is worried that they may not be built with the kitchens that are needed if kids are to have hot school dinners. He is also worried that in Leicester and across the country there are not the school dining facilities that would be necessary if we could get more schoolchildren eating hot school meals. Does the Minister agree that it would be absurd if the Government's schools building programme made it impossible to deliver better hot school dinners for our children?

Jim Knight: I passionately believe that it is important to have kitchen facilities in our schools, given that I represent a Dorset seat where the Tory county council closed the kitchens some 20 years. We do not have any kitchens in schools in Dorset and I am therefore looking forward to the investment, which will come. When we announced— [Interruption.]

Greg Mulholland: My wife is a primary school supply teacher in west Yorkshire and I have been amazed at the number of classes she has taught that have more than 30 children. She tells me that the children who are most detrimentally affected by large class sizes are those who struggle most—and, surely, they are the children whom we should be helping. That was backed up by research in 2003 by the University of London. There are 500,000 pupils in class sizes of more than 30. What will the Government do to bring that figure down next year, so that the most vulnerable pupils are cared for?

Mike O'Brien: I very much hope that we will. I am particularly pleased that the recent reference of a serious trafficking case to the Court of Appeal resulted in the sentence being substantially increased, to23 years. The Court of Appeal has thereby sent out a clear message that those caught engaging in human trafficking need to be sentenced appropriately, which means serious custodial sentences. We have recently seen a number of those, following that reference to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney-General.
	The establishment of the United Kingdom human trafficking centre in Sheffield, and of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, means that we can focus more closely on dealing with this problem. This is a growing problem as a result of the global economy, and there is still a lot of work to do to address it. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that that work is being done.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business of the House for the coming week. I start by congratulating him on arranging for hon. Members to be able to table written questions during the recess. However, may I also ask him whether he has assessed the value of that exercise, in particular the impact on Government accountability?
	During the recess, the Modernisation Committee, which the Leader of the House chairs, published a report on the legislative process. When does he expect that any of the changes proposed might be considered by the House and introduced? When does he expect to be able to publish the calendar for the sittings of the House in the coming year?
	Today is the anniversary of the Bali bombing, where a number of British citizens were among those who lost their lives. There is no system of compensation for UK citizens who are the victims of terrorist attacks abroad. Can we have a debate on that important issue?
	Can we also have a debate, or a statement from the Home Secretary, on the use of figures and the compilation of statistics by the Home Office? I ask that in the light of a Home Office reply to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). He asked how many people have been arrested under anti-terrorism legislation and how long they were kept before being charged or released. The Leader of the House will realise that that is crucial to the debate on the time for which people may be held without charge and on 28 days versus 90 days.
	The reply from the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety was clear:
	"The Home Office does not collate information on the length of time an individual is detained prior to being charged or released".—[ Official Report, 18 September 2006; Vol. 449,c. 2490W.]
	In other words, he does not have a clue. We know that the Home Office has trouble with its figures, but surely when Ministers come to the House to propose restrictions of our civil liberties, they ought to know the facts.
	Talking of Ministers knowing facts, on Tuesday the Defence Secretary made a statement on Iraq and Afghanistan. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), referring to the Prime Minister's promise that the troops in Afghanistan could have whatever resources they needed, asked how many helicopters were available to go to Afghanistan. The reply from the Defence Secretary was, again, clear:
	"candidly, I do not have the information to be able to answer."—[ Official Report, 10 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 179.]
	Given that this is a subject of much public debate, I would have thought that the Defence Secretary would know how many helicopters we have. Can the Leader of the House please ensure that Ministers are properly briefed before they come to the House to make statements?
	Today, in figures published by the Healthcare Commission, we learn that more than half the NHS bodies in England need to improve their quality of service, and that nine out of 10 primary care trusts have been rated only weak or fair. When will the Health Secretary make a statement to the House on those results?
	Will the Health Secretary also come to the House and explain how much money has been spent reorganising the NHS in the past 10 years? As Polly Toynbee, whom I do not often quote, said of the Government in  The Guardian:
	"minister after minister reversed direction, created then tore up 10-year plans, dismantled then resurrected a market the party inherited. It invented new primary care groups, remade theminto primary care trusts, then merged them again into half the number. It demolished regional health authorities, put in28 Strategic Health Authorities, then merged them back down to the 10 original regions".
	Money has been wasted on bureaucratic changes, and this House deserves an explanation.
	On the subject of wasting money, when will the Government put before the House the money resolution needed to pay for the office of the Deputy Prime Minister? Questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) have shown that, while the Deputy Prime Minister may not have ajob, he does have 18 staff and will cost the taxpayer£2 million a year. I would have said that that was money for old rope, but I think that a piece of old rope would be more useful than the Deputy Prime Minister—

Jack Straw: I knew that I had been missing something over the 11 weeks of the summer—it was the right hon. Lady's jokes. A serious gap was left in my enjoyment.
	I thank the right hon. Lady for her congratulations on the introduction of recess written questions. It seems that that was widely welcomed across the House—more than 100 Members asked 732 questions. We are currently analysing those, including how many were, andhow many were not, answered on time. In addition,35 written ministerial statements were made. I am in no doubt that, if we keep to the current recess arrangements, September questions are an important element. I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that there will be an opportunity to debate the issue of September sittings, and I intend that that should take place before Prorogation in mid-November. That leads to the right hon. Lady's second question about the Modernisation Committee recommendations for changing the legislative process. I hope to make an announcement about that shortly. Although I cannot absolutely guarantee this at the moment, I hope that that will also be dealt with on the same day before Prorogation.
	I have received many representations about recess dates. As we have not made a decision about September sittings, I cannot give all the recess dates. As I know that that is causing difficulties on both sides of the House, I hope to announce the immediate recess dates, for Christmas and the half-term holiday in February, at business questions next Thursday.
	On the Bali bomb, I appreciate, of course, that today is the anniversary, as I was Foreign Secretary when I got the news of that terrible bombing. One Member of this House had a much closer and most terrible experience of that bombing. Consideration continues of the exact way in which we help victims of terrorism, abroad as well as at home, but we have sought, not least in consultation with the victims and relatives of victims of such terrible events, to ensure that we improve the support that we give.
	On Home Office statistics, I will look into the right hon. Lady's point, but I hope that she does not then start going on about the problem of form-filling by police officers, as forms are filled in by police officers to enable statistics to be provided. I make that as a serious point. She cannot have it both ways.
	On defence, I sat through the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the matériel being provided in Afghanistan. He made it clear that additional flying hours by helicopters, as well as by fixed-wing planes, were being provided. I am not sure whether he judges that it is in the national interest for the exact number of helicopters to be announced, but I will take that up with him.
	I am not surprised that the right hon. Lady left the issue of the NHS until low down in her questions, because I sat through the debate on the subject yesterday and it was a disaster for the Opposition. In one of the lamest Opposition speeches I have heard for a long time, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was holed below the water line as he protested about alleged cuts. The Conservative party has had to admit in its "NHS Campaign Pack" that
	"Labour have doubled spending on the NHS since 1997."
	In fact, spending has more than trebled. The Conservatives also say that there are now some "23,000 more doctors", but they have transposed the digits, because the true number is 32,000—

Laura Moffatt: Following yesterday's Opposition-day debate on the NHS, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on nurse education? I was unable to take part yesterday, but I note that the subject of nurse education was woefully absent from the debate. There have been tremendous advances in nurse education, and university facilities have been expanded. The Open university's distance learning opportunities are fantastic, and the fact that it is able to place a great many nurses in jobs soon after training is something to be admired. Sadly, no mention was made of that in yesterday's debate.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate early-day motion 2689, tabled by me and supported by a number of other hon. Members?
	 [That this House expresses its extreme concern at the handling of immigration cases by the Manchester firm of solicitors, Thornhills; notes that Thornhills often take up, for money, immigration application cases that do not require the involvement of solicitors; further notes that repeatedly they handle these cases so incompetently that applicants feel obliged to consult their hon. Member in order to obtain the outcome that Thornhills have failed to achieve; is deeply concerned that in one recent case whose applicants felt obliged to consult their hon. Member Thornhills refused to hand over important documents in their possession until an exorbitant bill had been paid; and warns people in Manchester to have nothing whatever to do with this firm.]
	The motion deals with Thornhills solicitors in Manchester, who take on immigration cases and botch them? They charge a great deal of money for the cases, which often end up with Members of Parliament. Will he pay special attention to a case in my constituency, in which Thornhills, even though they failed to deal with it, held on to the papers until my constituents paid them an exorbitant bill?

Richard Shepherd: The Leader of the House will well remember those bright days of "Your Right to Know"—the Government White Paper of which he was a signatory; indeed, he steered the freedom of information legislation through the House. Has he had an opportunity to read early-day motion 2699?
	 [That this House welcomes the finding of the Constitutional Affairs Committee (HC991) that the Freedom of Information Act has 'already brought about the release of significant new information and....this information is being used in a constructive and positive way' and the committee's conclusion that it sees 'no need to change' the Act's charging arrangements; views with concern reports that the Government is considering changing these arrangements to permit an application fee to be charged for all requests or to allow authorities to refuse, on cost grounds, a significant proportion of requests which they currently must answer; and considers that such changes could undermine the Act's benefits of increased openness, accountability and trust in the work of public authorities.]
	The early-day motion was signed by Members on both sides of the House, and is in respect of the strong rumours that the Government are considering changing the present fee arrangements, which will have a deleterious effect on access and on the objectives that the Government stated in their White Paper and in its support through legislation?

Jack Straw: It is not rumour but fact. When we began operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000,18 months ago at the beginning of 2005, we said that we would review its operation after it had been in force for a year. That is what my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has been doing, in consultation with colleagues. Subsequently, a report was produced by the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, to which, as is entirely proper, my noble Friend, in consultation with his Cabinet colleagues, is considering the Government's response, so that we can put our views before the Select Committee and the House. That is the appropriate way to proceed.

Hywel Williams: May we have a debate on restoring face-to-face interviews as the normal provision for pensioners and disabled people claiming social security benefits, as there is much dissatisfaction with the current telephone system? Now that the Leader of the House has asserted his right to face-to face interviews, will he do the same for that most vulnerable group?

Jack Straw: Our hearts go out to the relatives of the gentlemen who died as a result of deep vein thrombosis. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have taken some steps better to ensure that the incidence of that condition is lessened. I will certainly pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I remind my hon. Friend that Transport questions are coming up next Tuesday.

Jack Straw: I am sorry to say that the fundamental uncertainty faced by the Post Office arises from the extraordinary pace of change in the introductionof information technology . [ Interruption. ] That is absolutely true. It is affecting post offices all over the world. There is a dramatic change both in the number of letters posted and in the payment of benefits, which is a core business, particularly for sub-post offices. I repeat that we have recognised the fact that the Post Office faces a very big transitional problem. That is why we have put in £2 billion to help to maintain the network, including £750 million for the rural network. Of course my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—who represents a Scottish constituency, albeit an urban one—is well aware of the problem in far-flung rural constituencies in Scotland and elsewhere, and he will ensure that there is an effective response to the motion that is, no doubt, being tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

Keith Vaz: Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent, definitive and clear statement from the Home Secretary on whether the Government will impose employment restrictions on the citizensof Bulgaria and Romania when they join the EU in11 weeks' time? As a champion of enlargement, my right hon. Friend will know how important it is that we consult our potential EU partners and that we are clear about whether there will be such restrictions to avoid a repeat of the hysteria of the tabloid press before the last enlargement process on 1 May 2004.

Jack Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. There are questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry next Thursday and I hope that he is able to raise that matter then. Meanwhile, I will certainly pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are all concerned. What he is talking about applies not only to the Post Office, but to supermarkets: goods travel huge distances around the country, apparently for no great purpose.

Richard Benyon: Those of us who recently visited RAF Odiham heard at first hand of the courage of our air crews who are flying Chinooks in Afghanistan. Bearing in mind that and other sources, many of us were greatly surprised to hear the breezily uttered comments by the Prime Minister on the British Forces Broadcasting Service that all the equipment that the armed forces need would be made available. May we have a debate on what extra equipment the armed forces require, what actually exists and what the Government propose to do about the shortfall?

John Hayes: When I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Skills earlier about the paucity of core skills, you will have been surprised and disappointed by his answer, Mr. Speaker. He ignored the fact that one in three employers now has to provide remedial training to teach staff how to read, write and count. The skills crisis is affecting our economy and we need a debate on it. I hope that the Leader of the House will treat that as a matter of some urgency.

John Bercow: May we please have a statement or debate next week on the continuing crisis in Darfur, western Sudan? Given that murder and rape continue unabated and that foot-stamping by the Sudanese Government has already effectively vetoed a vital United Nations troop deployment to the region, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be timely for the House to debate whether the responsibility of the United Nations to protect is a serious attempt to avert genocide or simply a rather futile exercise in vacuous moral posturing?

Gillian Merron: I can assure the hon. Lady that we take account of the operational noise of aircraft when we consider setting noise abatement objectives, which I know are very important to her and her constituents. I emphasise that in doing so we work towards and contribute to internationally recognised standards.
	As I have already remarked, airports have been making use of the power to set noise-related charges for almost a quarter of a century. There has been no suggestion that the powers have been applied inappropriately or disproportionately during that time. We can see no justification for adding to clause 1 the requirement in the Lords amendments. Hon. Members who have expressed concerns should be in no doubt that should there ever appear to be a problem with the charging scheme, the Secretary of State will have the power to direct an airport operator as to the manner in which its charges are to be fixed.
	I ask the House to insist on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and I commend amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Julian Brazier: I assured the hon. Gentleman of that when I contacted him about my visit to his constituency, and I do so again.
	Where has the Government's policy, without the extra measures proposed by the Lords amendments, got us? They have finally admitted that they are not going to reach the target of reducing emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010, as we all knew. The Conservatives reduced CO2 emissions by 7 per cent. in their last seven years in office, but emissions are higher now than they were in 1997. The Environmental Audit Committee described Ministers as being "superficial and vague" about the environmental damage done by the Government's aviation policy.
	The then Secretary of State summarised the purpose of the 2003 White Paper as follows:
	"we have to balance those benefits against the serious environmental impact of air travel, particularly the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change, and the significant impact that airports can have on those living nearby. That is why the Government remain committed that, over time, aviation meets the external costs that it imposes".—[ Official Report, 16 December 2003; Vol. 000, c. 1433.]
	In that statement we have a perfect example of what the Select Committee meant when it referred to Ministers as being "superficial and vague". This Bill is a continuation of that policy—it is empty.
	The point is that compelling airports to make charges in relation to noise and emissions would also make compulsory the purposes for which those changes were introduced—reducing noise and emissions and encouraging the take-up of more environmentally efficient aircraft. That would speed up a process that is already taking place.
	The Government are being disingenuous with both the public and the airlines. In suggesting that there was no need for compulsion, the Minister's predecessor said:
	"I am confident that airports will, again, make use of these provisions when appropriate, with no need for compulsion from the Government".—[ Official Report, 8 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 41.]
	Much the same has been said today. Well, airports may well continue to do that. Some are doing so—after all, it is free money—but some are not. As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) pointed out, charging carries no obligation for airports to monitor noise or emissions. There is no obligation to set targets, or to create and maintain any logical sliding scale to reward airlines for success. In fact, there is no obligation to measure, let alone report on, progress.
	What proof is there that those charges have delivered any benefit since they started? We cannot tell whether they are working, as there is not even a requirement to provide statistics. All that the Bill will do, without amendment to beef it up—and the amendments before us are all that there is on the table—is provide a bit of cover for the airports in case lawyers from airlines make trouble for them.
	The Government have made what amounts to a very small concession, which the Minister has explained. It requires the Secretary of State, should he use his powers under subsection (4), to consider the interests of people who live in the area of the aerodrome. If he were considering finally getting on with it and doing something, it is difficult to conceive of any circumstances in which he would not consider them in that context. The phrase "among other things" in the Government amendment makes a pretty worthless amendment even vaguer. However, it does at least leave open the possibility that a future Secretary of State might listen to the concerns of local people—and not just those living around airports; we should remember that flight paths extend a long way.
	The Bill has ping-ponged between the Lords and the Commons several times. It is difficult to know how what advice to give, because although hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the Lords amendment is flawed—no one wants to impose such a measure on every small airport in the country—the only way of shaming the Government into the view that they ought to take serious action is to oppose the amendment again.

Edward Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) on his hard work, not only on behalf of his constituents, which he has properly done, but on behalf of the cross-party alliance of Members of Parliament from Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire—the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) is in his place. From our different geographical perspectives, all of us have plenty to say that is not hugely favourable to the way in which the management of Nottingham East Midlands airport has treated its neighbours.
	As I have said in the House on a number of occasions, I as a Conservative Member of Parliament am entirely satisfied that the Manchester Airport Group, which wholly owns the airport in my county, Leicestershire, is entitled to make a profit, to carry out its business and to do what it can to improve the facilities and other activities that go on at its airport, be it the reception and dispatch of aeroplanes or turning itself into a retail park. However, if Nottingham East Midlands airport is to have any local credibility, it should behave as a responsible neighbour.
	That brings me back to the question to which I did not get an answer when I intervened on the Under-Secretary: what do we mean by neighbour? In the language of the Bill—I am sure all hon. Members agree that we must be entitled to seek precision in the language of a Bill—we are creating a regime that will allow private enterprises to impose penalties on commercial operators. In the making of the law, it behoves us to be precise in what we mean. In her remarks this afternoon the Minister used the expression "locality", the original Bill uses the expression "vicinity", and the Secretary of State's amendment in lieu uses the expression "area". I am hugely concerned that because the Government are in thrall to the aircraft industry and the airport industry, they will provide no more than a hollow Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said. The Bill is no more than a set of words that will achieve nothing to make sure that airports such as Nottingham East Midlands airport behave themselves.
	My hon. Friend and I are going to Nottingham East Midlands airport tonight—I for the second time, at least, this year. I always get on extremely well with the managing director of the airport and with her senior management staff. They are unfailing in their courtesy and politeness, but I fail to understand why it is so difficult to extract from them information and facts.
	When I last went there in August, I was told that it was not possible to extract air speeds from the machinery that monitors incoming aircraft. The aircraft are delivered by the national air traffic system from the Welwyn sector into the sector that is controlled by Nottingham East Midlands air traffic control system. We were told that the continuous descent method over my constituency and south-east Leicestershire would ensure quieter descents across my constituency. We were told that aircraft do not travel at more than 250 knots as they come into Nottingham East Midlands air traffic system.
	I now have the radar details, which tell me that, by and large, aircraft are moving into the area at speeds in excess of 250 knots, and in order to cover the distance in a safe way, land and stop travelling by the end of the runway, they have to apply the air brakes, the full thrust and so on. The noise over my constituency is enormous, relative to the ambient noise in the area. The Government, the airport, its owners in Manchester, the Civil Aviation Authority and the airline operators care nothing about my constituents and their quiet enjoyment.
	I have said many times to various Ministers, various officers of Nottingham East Midlands airport and others who were prepared to listen that nothing is done about it. The latest amendment adds still further imprecision to the wording of the Bill. I am becoming increasingly frustrated about the good will of the Government to do anything to look after the people who live in this country. The Government are concerned only to placate the airline and the airport industries. I know that that is probably unfair, but it is the only inference I can draw from the evidence I have seen, from the conduct of the passage of the Bill and the people who appear to have influence on the Government.
	I shall stop now, as I know that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I urge the Government not to be satisfied with the use of loose language and not to hope that private enterprises such as Nottingham East Midlands airport will do anything other than let the status quo continue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. A time has been allocated for the two matters to be discussed. I think that the Minister was drawing to the end of her remarks.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 It being after one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, [pursuant to Order 8 May.]

Welfare Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Justine Greening: Is the Secretary of State aware that some 40 million to 50 million litres of untreated sewage goes into the Thames every year? Indeed, I have just received an answer to a parliamentary written question on that very issue. Does he not agree that keeping our core rivers clean is incredibly important, and that Thames Water's tideway proposal would solve a lot of these problems?

David Miliband: The hon. Lady is of course right to say that raw sewage coming into the Thames is a very serious issue. Actually, the Thames is also cleaner than it has been since the industrial revolution, which is a good thing. The Greater London Authority, the Mayor, the Government, the relevant environmental agencies and others are looking very carefully at the tideway proposal, and we hope to conclude the relevant studies by the early part of next year.

David Miliband: I will deal with these issues, but I always say that we must try to achieve at least a 60 per cent. reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050. There is always a danger in changing an ambitious target that has a widespread degree of buy-in and consensus. The CBI, voluntary organisations and, I think, the Opposition parties recognise the power of that 60 per cent. target, so I am slightly loth to start changing it too soon. But I recognise the value of the point that my hon. Friend makes.
	When the Prime Minister launched the British presidency of the G8 last year and put climate change, along with Africa, at the top of the agenda, he set out a three-stage process: getting agreement on the science, promoting a debate about stabilisation, and developing agreement on a long-term international framework. Let me address stabilisation, which is an important issue.
	The 1992 UN framework convention on climate change was signed not just by those Kyoto countries that are signatories to the protocol, but by 189 countries, including the United States, Australia and Canada. The convention urges its signatories to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.
	The latest science shows that atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since about 1750—from about 280 to 380 parts per million. The level of greenhouse gases, in CO2 equivalent concentration, is about 430 parts per million. Atmospheric CO2 levels, or equivalent, are rising at more than 2 parts per million per year. Without further action, CO2 emissions in 2050 are predicted to rise by 50 per cent. More immediately, within 10 years we will reach the 450 parts per million figure that many scientists believe would represent a shift from the balance of probability being against dangerous climate change toward its being in its favour.
	In other words, the window of opportunity for staying within a 450 to 550 parts per million range is closing. The costs of mitigation rise sharply for stabilisation below this range, and for adaptation the costs rise sharply beyond the upper limit of that range. I have not read today's report from Shell, but it speaks to this issue. The Stern Review, which will be concluded in the next few weeks, represents the most comprehensive work ever undertaken in the field of climate change economics. Preliminary findings were presented in Mexico last week to the second meeting of the Gleneagles dialogue, which I attended along with the Minister for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
	The evidence is clear: the cost of tackling climate change will be far less than the cost of dealing with the consequences. We have the technology to meet the challenge. Picking up on the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), we must find ways of getting investment across the globe in moving to a low carbon economy. That means working to develop an international framework that can secure global co-operation, plus effective domestic and European action.
	The 1992 UN convention used the language of "common but differentiated responsibilities" for all 189 signatories. Let me dwell on this for a moment. "Common" responsibilities means that all countries have to play a part. "Differentiated" responsibilities means that the greatest burden must be borne by those with the greatest ability to lead. The danger is that developing countries say that they will not play their part because the industrialised world is not promising to play its part; meanwhile, developed economies refuse to move because they suspect that developing countries will not take the action necessary.
	The Government's strategy to break this logjam is as follows. First, in Mexico last week we presented compelling new evidence on the economics, and I think that Ministers from all the 17 countries that attended left Mexico realising that "business as usual" is not an option. Secondly, we pursue bilateral agreements with key countries to deliver change on the ground now. On Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Indian counterpart signed a memorandum of understanding to add to work with China, Brazil, South Africa and—famously—California, in order to take action in the immediate future to mitigate future climate change.
	Thirdly, we are proud to see the European Union as a big part of the answer to the climate change problem. I say in all seriousness to the Conservative party that the battle against climate change requires a strong European Union; it is not possible to be an environmentalist and a Europhobe at the sametime. This problem crosses borders and requires international action.

David Miliband: I do not want to intrude on the private grief that has caused a divorce between the two main Opposition parties and broken the consensus that we were told would exist between them; they have now sundered all co-operation. But I am happy to be an intermediary for messages from the hon. Gentleman to the Conservatives, and to relay to them his concern that they should wake up, smell the coffee and realise that the European Union is part of the solution, not the problem.
	As I was saying, the climate change problem crosses borders and requires international action. The Government will continue to press for a strong and integrated European response to climate change. I can report to the House that the European Commission action plan on energy efficiency will be launchednext week. The sustainability pillar of the Lisbon competitiveness strategy needs to be strengthened, and the British Government will argue for that. Common agricultural policy reform must continue to emphasise the need to improve the net environmental benefits of farming. The extension of the EU emissions trading scheme needs to be taken forward later this year, and of course, the EU needs to continue to negotiate at international level for us, starting in Nairobi next month.

Lynne Jones: On practising what we preach, I would like to point outto colleagues that, yesterday and today, I have turned off about 10 lights in the Lady Members' Room downstairs.

David Miliband: I will give way in a second.
	Those measures included an extra 250,000 subsidised installations of home insulation over the next two years. This builds on the £320 million of investment this year through the warm front programme, which is helping constituencies right across the country, and the energy efficiency commitment, which has delivered net benefits to households in excess of £3 billion over the last three years.

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend is an extremely distinguished former Chief Secretary and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and he has zeroedin exactly on the point. There is a subsidy, which is £600 million to £700 million, and it is going to non-nuclear renewables.  [Interruption] The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) says it is not working. The only reason it is not working is because planning permissions are being opposed by his own Front Benchers. I will come to that, but the subsidy for onshore wind power has been a fantastic boon to the renewables industry. We have 4 per cent. of our electricity mix from renewables because of the subsidy.
	Let us dwell on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). We on this side of the House are determined to ensure that, if there is to be new investment in nuclear energy, it should pay its own way. It should not be subsidised from the public purse or by the consumer. The renewables obligation is designed to do precisely the opposite.
	We say that those renewable technologies, especially those that are not close to market, deserve special subsidy. That is the point of the renewables obligation. That is what the Conservative party, in its own words, has said that it wants to take away. If that is not its intention, I suggest that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle explain it. He will have more time to do so in his speech. If he needs more time to look at the policy and realise the contradictions, fair enough as well, but the policy as stated—the level playing field, on equal terms, between nuclear and non-nuclear renewables—means the end of the subsidy for non-nuclear renewables.

David Miliband: If the hon. Gentleman will let me, I should now finish. His Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, has time to make his own speech, whereas I have overextended mine. The hon. Gentleman has already had one go, and I am sure that he will make the winding-up speech, so he will have his own shot at this.
	Let me conclude on the energy review.  [Interruption.] The Government are happy to talk about policy; unlike the Conservatives, we have some coherence in ours. The energy review also set out a revolutionary change in the basis of energy supply regulation, so that companies are incentivised to conserve energy rather than supply more of it. It set out a scheme to target the emissions of the 5,000 public and private organisations, such as Tesco and the BBC, that are medium-level emitters. That is worth 1.2 million tonnes of carbon, and it has also set out an increase in the renewable transport fuel obligation to more than 5 per cent. after 2011.
	I am pleased to confirm to the House the continuing progress in the battle against waste and for recycling. Many hon. Members will have been struck by the extension of kerbside collection—90 per cent. of the country now has kerbside collection of recycling, which is unique in the European Union.
	The latest provisional figures, published today, show that households in England recycled 27 per cent. of their waste last year, which is more than four times as much as under the previous Government. The target was 25 per cent. and the figure, although unaudited, is 27 per cent. That target has been met and exceeded.
	To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), the Government need to show a lead in their own operations. We have already introduced carbon offsetting for central Government, ministerial and official air travel. Earlier this year, I announced a pledge that the Government office estate will go carbon neutral by 2012, which is the equivalent of taking 150,000 cars off the road.
	Recently, I also announced the partnership for renewables, which will mobilise up to £500 million of investment to catalyse the expansion of the public sector renewables, producing up to 500 MW of renewable electricity. The Leader of the Opposition has called wind turbines "giant bird blenders". We call them a major spur to renewable energy, and we support them.
	I know that many hon. Members are interested in the question of legislation on climate change. I understand that and welcome the debate. The Government have said in the climate change programme review and, more recently, in the energy review that we are looking carefully at the merits of introducing a carbon budget as a means of helping to deliver our goals. The only issue for the Government is whether the legislation would help in the battle against climate change, support the efforts to join individual activity with business and Government leadership, and link domestic and international action.
	I caution that legislating for targets is not the same as legislating the means to achieve them, and it is the means to achieve them on which we will all be judged. Consensus on goals is important, but without effective policy there is no effective response. However, I want to underline the fact that we are looking carefully at the idea of legislation. The issue for us is not whether to legislate, but what form legislation should take and how it could be organised.
	Climate change requires change right across society—from Government, individuals and business. I am proud that this should be the first Government to set a long-term goal for carbon reduction consistent with the science of climate change; legislate for a climate change levy; meet and tighten the caps under the European emissions trading scheme; establish insulation and energy efficiency programmes, delivering more than £700 million of investment into homes each year; and be recognised as a world leader on climate change.
	All those changes have met with scepticism, and some with opposition, but they were right. Now we need to go further—in some areas, much further. We will do so, and I look forward to receiving support from across the House.

Peter Ainsworth: First, the hon. Gentleman will know that individual Members of Parliament have a duty to represent their constituents' interests where they are affected by infrastructure projects of any kind. Conservative Members are perfectly at liberty to take a view about proposals in their own constituencies, but that does not affect Conservative party policy. Secondly, Liberal Democrat Members also have a slight problem in this regard, and the reason that we and the Liberal Democrats may be more affected is that wind turbines tend to be sited in large rural areas with hills, which, on the whole, tend to be represented by our parties than by the Labour party. It is essential that the wind energy industry is sensitive to landscape and does not propose developments in places where there will be a clear impact on landscape, biodiversity or any other environmental consideration. One of our arguments with the current support for renewables is that it has tended to put money into large onshore wind farms, which are naturally controversial in those areas where they are proposed. In the long run, that is not helpful to securing renewable energy in this country.

Adrian Bailey: Bearing in mind the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments about taking people step by step, I was somewhat astonished by his comment, as I interpreted it, that Conservative Members are entitled to oppose their party's policy on energy conservation in their constituencies. Does he agree that that is a strange way of taking people step by step?

Colin Challen: I add my praise for the hon. Gentleman in his role as Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee and for being a good parliamentarian on these issues. I make the same point to the hon. Gentleman as I made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is that the science and the analysis are pointing in the worst direction possible and we will have to go beyond the 60 per cent. target by 2050. If we are to have new legislation, surely it should be framed in such a way that we are not necessarily bound to a figure that is then overtaken at a later date, as the science improves. Will he commit his party to that approach so that we can move with the times, instead of presenting to the public as an established solution something that will not actually solve the problem—

Peter Ainsworth: As we are in praise mode, let me add to the heap of praise showered on the hon. Gentleman by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record on this issue and he makes a fair point. It would be the purpose of the independent body that I have mentioned to assess and evaluate the science; consider the shifting evidence; and make authoritative pronouncements about what we need to achieve as a society to reduce the risk of climate change.
	A climate change Bill, if and when the Government get round to introducing one, would also show that they are taking a lead. It would help the public to make the changes that they will need to make if they can see that the Government are taking the matter seriously and legislating to discipline their own activity. We look forward to a forthcoming announcement on the subject.
	There is so much more that we could be doing. We have already heard mention of energy efficiency, which is the no-brainer option in this debate, but we are still building homes that fail to live up to decent standards of energy efficiency. We need much tougher ecological building standards. Some 43 per cent. of houses tested by the Building Research Establishment in a recent trial failed to meet existing building standards despite having an energy performance certificate.
	We need to do much more to make people aware of what they can do to reduce energy use and save money at the same time. Some 8 per cent. of all electricity consumed in our houses is for things that we are not actually using at the time. If every conventional light bulb in our homes were replaced by an energy efficient light bulb, the total demand for electricity would fall by 3.5 per cent. So there is much more that we can do.
	We can also do more to promote decentralised and community-led solutions. We need to rework the tax system so that it forms part of our armoury in the fight against climate change. On that front, the Government started well. The statement of intent on environmental taxation in 1997 committed the Government to shifting the burden of tax from goods to bads and implementing the polluter pays principle. Figures from the Office for National Statistics, released today, show that the shift has gone the other way. Environmental taxes, as a percentage of total tax and social contributions, have fallen from 8.3 per cent. in 2004 to 7.7 per cent. in 2005. The percentage was lower still in 1997. We need to get back on track with the tax system as part of our armoury.

Alan Whitehead: In the context of environmental taxation, does the hon. Gentleman accept that capping and trading carbon emissions is a development from taxation, in which the market undertakes the work that taxation might otherwise do? Would he include in his analysis what is happening to European emissions trading and will he be active in ensuring that the emissions trading system 2008-12 really works?

David Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman knows about continuous dissent!

Peter Ainsworth: I cannot, as I must make progress.
	In that context, I turn now to emissions trading which, as the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) said, certainly has a part to play. It is unfortunate that the EU's scheme has gone awry—mainly because of how it was structured in the first place—but that does not undermine the principle of using emissions trading to drive down carbon emissions. I welcomed what the Secretary of State had to say about what he was doing in that regard. We very much support more auctioning of permits to pollute, and want to get away from the type of back-door negotiations that have resulted in a system that is not working. We want more transparency in these matters.
	As for the EU, I confirm that, although the Opposition can disagree about the euro, the constitution or some of the regulations that the EU produces, we have no doubt that it has a crucial role to play in climate change. It is the biggest market in the world, its buying power has an enormous capacity for good, and it is also a major voice in world affairs. Of course, therefore, we must work closely with our EU neighbours on climate change.

Joan Walley: As other Members have said, it is most important that Parliament is debating climate change—and on only the fourth day back. Our debate has mobilised the local radio station in my constituency, BBC Radio Stoke, to cover energy issues on its morning programme during the whole of next week. I hope that our proceedings today will encourage such debates all around the country. I particularly look forward to the Secretary of State's contribution to those radio programmes next week.
	Our debate today is an opportunity for us to congratulate everybody who is doing so much to put climate change at the top of the agenda. Only if we all act together can we respond to the challenge of climate change. If we ignore that challenge, we will leave our grandchildren, and even our children, to suffer the consequences.
	I want to flag up the work of the Environmental Audit Committee. I am sure that everybody agrees that when it was set up 10 years ago our understanding of environmental degradation was nowhere near as wide as it is now. Our Select Committee has really tracked climate change and I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who now speaks for the Opposition, as former Chair of the Committee.
	Our Committee's reports on green government, on the pre-Budget reports, on education for sustainable development and on "Keeping the lights on" have helped us to focus on the targets and actions needed, as well as on the gulf between words and action. Through Parliament, the Committee has helped to maintain and to inform the debate. As we move on to the next, urgent stage in tackling climate change, we should be looking at what extra role this Parliament and Parliaments across the world can play to keep world leaders focused on tackling climate change.
	The fact that the general public—our citizens—can now easily access the Committee's reports and use them to inform themselves, their colleagues and neighbours, at work and at home, about the changes that we shall all have to adopt and to engineer means that there is a new way of bringing home to people a simple truth. We all have to find new ways of tackling the challenge of climate change—not only world leaders and national leaders but leaders in every community.
	I am pleased that this debate coincides with the Committee's decision to publish quickly, on Monday, the Government's response to our most recent report; we felt that Parliament should have the benefit of the report this afternoon. Anybody reading the reams of detailed, wide-ranging, technical and, in places, passionate written and oral evidence received by the Committee will instantly be able to catch up with issues that often seem complex and with which the Government have to grapple within an extremely restricted time frame. As we have already heard, we have only a short time to meet the challenges of climate change. It is as though we are speaking at five minutes to midnight—or even later.
	Our report acknowledges the unprecedented change in the energy policy landscape and the sharp rise in public interest in energy supply and energy security against the backdrop of rising prices, while climate change is the most pressing issue of our times. It is for Government to lead us through all the contradictions, but they can do so only if the public are aware of, and understand the bigger picture. A constant theme in all the Committee's reports on the issue is the need for leadership, so I applaud our Government and our Prime Minister for the leadership that the UK has shown and continues to show nationally and internationally.
	We are shaping the international framework. We have already heard about the follow-up to the G8 summits at Gleneagles in 2005 and St. Petersburg, and meetings have recently taken place in Mexico. Our Government are helping to create consensus among the big polluters, although I do not know whether we can achieve one across the Chamber. We have heard about the bilateral treaty that was signed with India. Today, Parliament must endorse all the international initiatives, and we must support Ministers as they approach the Nairobi meeting next month. I am also pleased that we may have representatives from the Environmental Audit Committee at that meeting as well, to support what is being done.
	Action on the world stage must be matched by leadership in our own country. It is important to have a foolproof way to deliver year-on-year commitments to reduce carbon emissions. We must turn our attention to what we can do, and how and when we can do it. I therefore want to add my support for the pleas to include a climate change Bill in the forthcoming Queen's Speech. However, a climate change Act would not be the be-all and end-all—the single magic solution—to reducing carbon emissions. Quite simply, there is no single, simple solution.
	As well as systematically preventing CO2 emissions, we must all make unprecedented changes to the traditional way of running our economy and living our lives—something that has been touched on in the opening speeches. The Government are right to promote energy efficiency seriously, to support new green technologies and to transform procurement policy. I should like to add my support for the procurement policy issue that was picked up by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), because the Government could be doing far more about that.
	We need to consider revised planning guidance. We want to make the comprehensive spending review an unapologetic driver of sustainable development. We need to do all those things at the same time and with urgency. But most of all, we need to have the backing of the British public in all those changes, and we need to do far more to find out how we can get them on board.
	I shall quickly deal with the legislation on energy policy that is expected to be presented to the House in the coming months. It will provide an important opportunity for Parliament—both in the House, in the Chamber and in Committee, and in the other place—to debate how we can make the changes that we need. We have heard a lot of reference to how the UK met its Kyoto targets early, but we did so as much by chance as by design: we were very much able to take advantage of the dash for gas.
	We should beware of a false sense of security because emissions are on an upward trend, as we have heard. That could jeopardise the medium-term target of 60 per cent. cuts by 2050. Of course, as we heard in the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen), the more science and understanding that we have, the more we know the scale of the problem and the quicker we may need to go, perhaps even more quickly than the 60 per cent. cuts. We can only do that if we all understand the bigger picture. Once we start a journey, the more distance we cover, step by step, the more we can see just exactly where we need to be.
	I should like very briefly to dwell on the role of nuclear energy. I do not feel that the Minister for Energy, who is based at the Department of Trade and Industry, has set out how the new nuclear build needed to replace the generation of reactors that is being phased out can be in place by 2010. The Sustainable Development Commission, which is the Government's own adviser, noted that nuclear power will make little contribution towards reducing carbon emissions before 2020.
	The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who appeared before our Committee, acknowledged in his evidence and supplementary memorandum that it was likely to be 2018, at the very earliest, before nuclear capacity in a new form could be in place. The issue for the Government is that, as things stand, there is no institutional framework to guarantee investors secure returns over the long term, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will look at that in the coming months.
	Turning away from energy policy at the DTI to other Departments, I am pleased to see the lead that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking in ensuring that other departmental policies are consistent with our climate change policy, but the problem is that such things never happen quickly enough. I should like to ask whether the Government can do more to resolve the issues that have been flagged up by the Companies Bill, which the House will debate next week, and to find out what they can do to respond to the requests for environmental reporting, which we need if we are to keep tabs on what is happening.
	Looking at the framework for sustainable development in respect of the Government estate, which was introduced in 2002-03 and flagged up in earlier Environmental Audit Committee reports, we can be really proud of the aspirational target that the Government have set to become carbon neutral by 2012. That is going to make a big difference. I would like the Minister to put his energies into seeing what can be done to extend that further, so that rather than excluding the NHS and the education estate, it could extend beyond Government offices. I would likethe greening government targets for operational management of Departments to apply right across the board. The Lyons review is looking at ways to relocate Departments from London and the south-east. There are huge opportunities to integrate all that.
	I want to flag up the issue of private finance initiatives and how they are being used. I am pleased that the Minister of Sport and the Government have pledged that the 2012 Olympics are going to be the greenest ever. We should take a leaf out of that book in respect of PFI and the design, construction and maintenance of each and every new building around the country. It is clear that we are embarking on a major programme of house building, as well. High standards will be needed. As we have already heard, we could go so much further. We could look at Treasury rules in respect of whole-life costing so that financial appraisals take account of the full costs—capital and revenue—and the extra investment that is needed now will not be ruled out because there is not the maintenance and the revenue money to pay for it.
	There are also the issues raised by the built environment professions. I want to flag up the Royal Institute of British Architects and its "Manifesto for Architecture", which was recently published. I share its hopes for the Government's code for sustainable homes, which I acknowledge has been strengthened. The issue is that the code remains voluntary, apart from houses built by English Partnerships or the Housing Corporation. Pressure needs to be placed on the commercial housing sector to raise building performance standards even more.

Christopher Huhne: I congratulate the Secretary of State on finding Government time, albeit perhaps abridged, to discuss this absolutely crucial matter. I am delighted that it is clear that there is consensus across the House—including even the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has left the Chamber—that climate change is accepted science. Forty-eight Nobel prize winners writing to the Bush Administration cannot be wrong. Indeed, the editor of  Science was recently quoted as saying that rarely in science is a consensus as strong as it is around the view that there has been man-made global warming. Of course, the intergovernmental panel on climate change has done exceptional work and we look forward to seeing the fourth assessment report soon.
	As I have examined the matter over the past year, I have been struck, as I know that the Secretary of State has, given several of his remarks, by renewed evidence that the problems created by global warming are accelerating, such as the movement of glaciers. For example, the Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland is moving by 113 feet, whereas previously it moved by only inches in a year. In Antarctica we have seen the destruction of a substantial ice shelf the size of Turkey—or the size of Texas, as they prefer to put it in the United States.
	At home, we can see that the situation is worsening by considering something as relatively mundane as the Thames barrier. The barrier has been raised 55 times in the past five years, but was raised only 12 times in the previous five. We know about the situation affectingthe railway line from Dawlish to Newton Abbott in the west country, on which I travelled recently when visiting one of my hon. Friends' constituencies—and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) might become the first person in the history of the House to lose his constituency, or a very substantial part of it, to the encroaching sea. We have drought in the Thames Water area. We experience flooding, and rapid downpours lead to water running off concrete and baked soil. Insurance claims are mounting rapidly, which is an increasing source of concern to the Association of British Insurers.
	On that point, I ask the Secretary of State to consider what to do about the remaining climate change deniers, who include multinational corporations. Although ExxonMobil, for example, no longer denies global warming outright, it funds institutions and websites that do. Judged by its actions, not its words, it is a climate change-denying organisation, and it has been treating some reputable bodies pretty badly. I said recently that the Royal Society had pointed out that ExxonMobil was still funding climate change-denying organisations such as the International Policy Network and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The IPN is the organisation whose executive director, Mr. Morris, popped up so long ago with a poisonous and personal attack on Sir David King, the chief scientific adviser, as having no status in the debate because he was not a climate scientist. I do not know how much ExxonMobil thought that nasty bit of attempted character assassination was worth, but Mr. Morris ludicrously described Sir David as
	"an embarrassment to himself and an embarrassment to his country",
	and the Royal Society calculates that overall ExxonMobil spent $2.9 million on such outfits last year alone.
	The Royal Society's letter says that
	"ExxonMobil last year provided more than $2.9 million to organisations in the United States which misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."
	Exxon's director of corporate affairs, Mr. Nick Thomas, rang me and said that the author of the letter to ExxonMobil had left the Royal Society. I asked whether he had been sacked, and Mr. Thomas said that he could not possibly comment, but it was clearly significant. The implication was left hanging in the air. When I checked, I found that Bob Ward, the senior manager at the Royal Society, had been promoted into another job. The Royal Society is standing by every word that he wrote, as it made clear in a subsequent press release attempting to deal with internet rumours.
	I ask the House: should we be buying fuel from people such as ExxonMobil? I do not want even indirectly to be helping to fund bodies such as the International Policy Network and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. I do not think that the Government should do so either, if only as a tribute to the sterling work of Sir David King, so I hope that Government procurement of fuel oil no longer uses Esso or Exxon. ExxonMobil is surely the irresponsible and unacceptable face of capitalism, to borrow a phrase. Perhaps Ministers could tell us what they propose to do, if only to protect the reputations of their own distinguished employees.
	The climate change Bill, which has been mentioned by a number of Members, has been championed by Friends of the Earth, and we are very pleased to give our support to the Bill and to the commitment to annual emissions reductions. We have to watch the average figures and make sure that weather events are not going to blow us off course. I agree with the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) that we may well need to be more ambitious than the 60 per cent. cut currently pencilled in for 2050. I agree also with what the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said about the need for independent monitoring, not, I hope, as a way of deciding policy, but certainly as a way of informing it and making sure there can be no doubt, among Members and policy makers, of the impartial assessment of the scientific community.
	We must remember always that targets are only the first step to a solution. They have to be credible. Frankly, if targets were the way to better government, this country would be the best governed in the world because one thing with which this Government cannot be reproached is failing to multiply the number of new targets. We need also to talk about practical policies.
	At an international level I would like to hear more from the Secretary of State and his colleagues about how we will press on with the agenda that they were outlining at Monterrey. For example, was it not disappointing that, as I understand from press reports, the Russians were not present? What can we do as a European Union to make sure that the Russians are on board? Nevertheless, like the Secretary of State, I firmly believe that we can tackle the issue, if only because a mere 20 countries out of nearly 200 in the United Nations are responsible for 80 per cent. of carbon emissions. We can gather the key people around the table, and we can ensure that they address the problem.
	There is a serious difficulty with the developing world, because of the nature of the problem. Contraction and convergence, to which our party is committed, deals with the flow of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, but not with the stock already there. Of course, the stock is the key factor, as CO2 has a life of 100 years once it has been emitted into the atmosphere. The developing world can legitimately turn round and say that 70 per cent. of all the man-made CO2 currently in the atmosphere originates from the developed world. What proposals do the Government have for dealing justly and equitably with that issue? There is much merit in Jagdish Bhagwati's proposal for a super-fund, which could help to fund a technological generation jump in the third world and is worth considering.
	Closer to home, the Government like to talk the talk, but they are far from being effective and joined-up in their own policy actions. I shall give five examples of how disjointed and dysfunctional the Government have become. First, it is universally recognised that green taxes—taxes on fossil fuels and the machines that use fossil fuels—are part of the solution to global warming. The emissions trading scheme is crucial, but it covers only a little under half of all emissions from the UK. Even if we extend it to aviation, as we should—I agree with the Secretary of State, and I would like to know whether the Government are in favour of extending it to shipping and road freight, too—substantial parts of the economy would be left outwith the emissions trading scheme.
	That is why taxation is the way to bring incentives to bear on people's behaviour. A Nordic Council report, which I recommend to anyone who needs a little help getting to sleep at night, is excellent on the subject of economic instruments. Under this Government, we have been going backwards since 1999 on green taxes, which have fallen from 3.6 per cent. of gross domestic product to 2.9 per cent. last year—I prefer to use that figure.

Christopher Huhne: It certainly does not. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Perhaps Ministers will look into the matter and remonstrate with the Environment Agency to sort out the problem.
	Given the situation, it is not surprising that the Government have been missing their climate change targets and meeting others only by accident. As I have said, carbon emissions are up, but the only reason why we are still just meeting our Kyoto targets is the accident of the dash for gas, which was not Government policy. Because we generated electricity from natural gas rather than coal, greenhouse gas emissions from the generating sector fell by one quarter.
	If we are to take the challenge of climate change seriously, which we must, the lurching, lolloping policy must stop. Instead, we need a systematic policy framework for all the areas of Government that affect climate change: on transport, we need green taxes such as vehicle excise duty; on aviation, we need to change air passenger duty into an emissions charge; and on households, we need ambitious new building regulations, which is the responsibility of the Department for Communities and Local Government.
	We need a household energy efficiency scheme that works better than DEFRA's Warm Front. Warm Front has done a few more than 1 million homes, and the pace is so slow that it would take 125 years to reach all the UK's current homes, which belies the urgency of reducing carbon emissions from the residential sector. In terms of businesses, we have already heard from other hon. Members about commercial property.
	It is crucial that we become much more ambitious in moving forward. I have mentioned in particular electricity generation through renewables. Nuclear power cannot fill the gap or stop us from becoming more dependent on natural gas on a 10 or 15-year view, so for heaven's sake let us not pretend that it can. Let us invest in the renewables that will ensure that we are not writing an open cheque to investors in nuclear power plants.
	Since the Secretary of State asked from a sedentary position whether I agree with him rather than with the Conservatives, I have to say that Liberal Democrats agree with neither. We do not believe that nuclear has a part to play in the energy generation future of this country. Anyone who thinks that that is an implausible prospect need only look at what is happening in Germany and Sweden. I would particularly commend to the Secretary of State Sweden's objective of not just a non-nuclear but a non-fossil fuel future. It is time for the Government to raise their sights and ambitions a little in tackling what they say, rhetorically, is the most important policy challenge of our time.
	As for joined-up Government, the aid budget at the Department for International Development needs to be reshaped. Adaptation is urgent, particularly as regards sub-Saharan Africa, in some of the poorest countries in the world. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office needs to regard that as its top priority, as a world interest that is also a British interest. If we can exercise any influence on the Administration of George Bush—which will, after all, be there for another two years—please let us do so, but first and foremost the Government need to get their own act together. All the evidence is that we suffer from a lack of joined-up government in this respect, and that is a measure of the Government's failure on climate change.

Colin Challen: I am grateful for that intervention. The simple answer is that we are afraid of being booted out and replaced by a Government who are not prepared to confront that issue. We must have framework-based markets. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) that capitalism is the most powerful force for change in the world. Whether that should be the case is another matter—I shall not go down that route. We must tell capitalism how to respond and not simply try to replace it because we do not have the capacity to do that.
	Some of the issues must be tackled through a global framework. Contraction and convergence has already been mentioned and I want to dwell on that for a little because I introduced a Bill on it last December. Contraction and convergence form the framework in the articles of the United Nations framework convention on climate change—UNFCCC—that I mentioned earlier. There are many objections to a single global framework for tackling climate change.
	A recent Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report, which responded to the continuing Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into the post-Kyoto frameworks, stated that we could not have a single framework and that it was impossible to achieve. There are one or two samples of attempts to understand the reason for that sort of psychology. The Prime Minister said at a G8 climate change conference in November last year:
	"It is because people fear some external force imposes an internal target that is going to restrict your economic growth."
	That could be an objection to some sort of global framework on which we all agree. Some people, perhaps especially in the United States, believed that it would be a straitjacket on the development of their economies.

Nick Hurd: I welcome this debate and my contribution will focus on three aspects of this extremely broad and complex issue. The first is Britain's role, about which we need to be clear. Secondly, I want to press the Government, and clarify their position, on a specific element of the international dialogue that appears to have been neglected: the response to the fact that approximately 20 per cent. of global emissions result from the human activity of destroying trees. Thirdly, I want to return to the issue of cross-party consensus. Greater minds than mine have worked on this issue, which seems to be extremely important, notwithstanding the current healthy competitive tension between the parties as they attempt to "out-green" each other.
	On Britain's role, Mrs. Thatcher was right—there, I have said it—to say that there is no national solution to climate change. The fundamental challenge is how to build consensus around a stabilisation target that is credible and supported by robust science, and how to engage the global community in getting on the road map to achieving that target. Since the superpower of today and the superpower of tomorrow are in a temporary stand-off on this issue, the leadership function falls, in a very timid way, to the European Union.
	My personal view is that it is entirely right for Britain to seek a leadership role. It is important to establish that point, because one hears voices—I hear them in my constituency—saying, "Why are you banging on about this subject? It is all about the United Statesand China." It is not, and not least because of the point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh Chris Huhne). We are not 2 per cent. of the problem. Given that carbon molecules stay in the atmosphere for 100 years, we are significantly more than 2 per cent. of the problem. There is a strong moral case to be made for British leadership on this issue. Our society has prospered on the back of easy access to cheap fossil fuels, and the price is being picked up by the poor countries. That is the reality—if one believes in the theory of human impact on climate change—and the moral case for British leadership on this issue.
	The second argument for British leadership is that we are very well placed to lead because of our diplomatic relationships and skills base, and because of the credibility of the climate science rooted in this country. Thirdly, such leadership would be to our advantage. We will doubtless witness in our lifetimes a step in the transition toward a low carbon economy. The winners will be those at the vanguard of that movement, and Britain has the opportunity to be there. It is in our economic interest to be a leader in this process.
	The Prime Minister gets this and has taken a lead on the issue. Such leadership has been defined to date by rhetoric. To say that is not to disparage him, because words are important in moving this issue up the global agenda. The other element that defines his leadership is the 60 per cent. target, which is ambitious. The problem with it is that no one believes that we are going to hit it, so the credibility of our leadership is being really tested, and we need to re-examine the key pillars of that leadership.
	As a developed economy and one of the leading economies in the world, we have the opportunity to prove the principle of green growth, by which I mean the principle that one can significantly reduce emissions without sacrificing economic growth. We were well teed up to do this because of the dash for gas—whatever the motivation for that—but the awkward fact is that carbon emissions have risen since 1997, as people are noticing. We are in danger of squandering our opportunity. Energy efficiency and conservation are at the heart of our response and carry with them significant economic opportunities for this country, such as the ability to enhance our competitiveness in an age in which fossil fuels are likely to get more expensive, rather than less.
	If we can prove that point, we have the opportunity to transform the international debate, which is proceeding at the pace of the least willing. We have to prove the principle of green growth and shift the debate from one that focuses exclusively on risk to one that also entertains the possibility of opportunity. That could be invaluable in triggering the gear change that, as previous speakers have said, is needed.
	The second element must involve broadening the coalition of the willing and changing the frame of the debate. Until now, climate change has been spoken of in isolation. It has sat in a kind of silo of thinking, but the more we look at it, the more we see that it is absolutely interlocked with the biggest geopolitical issues of our age. It is absolutely interlocked with energy security, with access to water and food, and with growing concerns for security linked to the migration of peoples fleeing the impacts of climate change. It is also interlocked with issues of poverty alleviation and the treatment of chronic health inequalities around the world. The more we can stitch concerns about climate change into these issues, the greater will be our chance of broadening the coalition of the willing to deal with it. The British Government have a crucial opportunity in that regard.
	The third pillar is one on which the Secretary of State tried to make mischief—the leadership role in Europe. I take a Eurosceptic position on the value of the euro to this country and on the process of ever-closer political union, but I can reconcile that position very comfortably in my mind with a strong desire to see Europe becoming much more effective in doing what it says on the tin in relation to promoting more effective action on issues that cross borders.
	The reality in Europe is that, although some economies are much more advanced than ours in promoting renewable energy—I believe that the Minister has more experience of this matter than I do—we must recognise that opinions on the European emissions trading scheme vary enormously. That extremely important initiative, which was a result of Kyoto, is none the less fragile, and the British Government, as a leader in Europe, must be at the forefront of the drive to build on the initiative and not to sacrifice it. We must take our partners with us on that. The development of market instruments such as the emissions trading scheme and the clean development mechanism is likely to be at the heart of the solution, not least in regard to correcting a market failure—the inability to price carbon effectively. The lack of an effective price for carbon underlies the apparent failure of the first phase of the emissions trading scheme to drive innovation and change.
	The second opportunity for Europe will be to ensure that the single market grows the market for new technologies and raises product standards. The more we do that, the cheaper those technologies will become as they are deployed. Europe has an enormous opportunity to do that and to reach bilateral agreements with significant players in the global warming debate and to encourage them to engage with climate change. I very much welcome the initiatives that the Government are taking through agreements with places such as China. We need to see the details, and the results, of those agreements, but the initiative is the right one. However, the European Union has much greater weight than we do as an individual nation in helping to bring the big polluters to the table. From my perspective as a Eurosceptic, that is what I believe Europe should be about, and I want to encourage the Government to be at the forefront of that process.
	Moving on from the role of Britain, I should like to press the Government on an issue that I mentioned earlier. It is striking that almost 20 per cent. of our carbon emissions come from deforestation—a broadly similar proportion to that in the United States. In theory, we can control the practice, as humans are responsible for it. In theory, too, that should be cheaper than restructuring the way in which we produce, distribute and consume energy, although I think that we shall have to do that as well. However, the global community is slow to grasp this opportunity, even though it ought to be pretty close to the top of the list of cost-effective actions that we could take.
	I am aware that the rain forest nations have put together a proposal for conservation credits. The implementation of such a proposal would be fraught with difficulty, but it is an attractive theory that is entirely consistent with the EU principle of paying farmers to maintain the environment. I have some experience of this matter, having lived in Brazil for five years. The harsh reality is that deforestation of the Amazon is being driven by a very hard dollar for soya and for beef, which are exported principally to Europe. However, there is no equivalent hard dollar for conservation out there in the marketplace. That opportunity must be thought through carefully as we try to get to grips with the global challenge. Will the Government support and actively promote the creation of conservation credits in Nairobi? I look to the ministerial response on that in the winding-up speech.
	Turning to the domestic agenda, it is clearly desirable that a cross-party consensus is achieved that includes the world of business, on which we will rely for many of the solutions to the challenge. People have in their in-trays documents on long-term investment decisions that will shape our ability to meet the 2050 target to reduce the carbon intensity of our economy, and they want some vision of what will happen after 2012. They want some vision of the political will to grasp the issue and take action, because that will shape their investment decisions.
	My understanding is that there is cross-party consensus on the target, although the language is shifting to suggest that it is a minimum rather than a maximum. Conservative Members at least believe that the 2050 target needs to be broken down. I put it to the Government that the evidence I have heard from business is that the 2050 target is simply not biting on today's decision makers, whether they sit in Whitehall, the civic centre or the boardroom. I have not heard a plausible or robust argument against breaking down that target into more pressing milestones. I look forward to the ministerial response on that.
	The issue between us seems to be about tax, which I regret for two reasons. First, I detect that there is increasingly common ground, at least among Conservative Members, about the need to re-examine the tax system. The shadow Chancellor spoke about green taxes in Tokyo, and there is clearly a mood to shift taxation from goods towards bads.

Paddy Tipping: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) because he makes two points—one on Britain's leadership in the world and the other on carbon pricing—that I want to reinforce and reiterate.
	The Government have achieved a great deal, but there will be big challenges in the future, not just for Government but for all of us. Let me list some of the achievements: the introduction of fiscal measures;the renewables obligation; the climate change levy; and the stepping up of duty on motor vehicle taxation. Those are important, and as other Members on both sides of the House have said, we need more. We have worked for many years to introduce a renewable transport fuel obligation, and it is almost within our grasp.

Christopher Huhne: If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he mentioned that there had been a rise in fuel and car taxation. He may not be aware of this,but in fact the vehicle excise duty proposals announced in the Budget involve a fall, even in cash terms, of£10 million in overall revenue. Once again, fuel duty is declining in real terms. Therefore, he is not correct.

Paddy Tipping: I watched with interest the Liberal party conference and the proposals that came out of it. My simple point, however, is that it is important to step up the differential rates between cars of different capacity. As the hon. Gentleman draws me into that area, I wish that the Chancellor had done more, and I hope that we will continue to go in that direction. The hon. Gentleman also minimised the warm front scheme. I do not belittle the achievement of better insulation for 1.1 million people. Nor do I belittle the £800 million available between 2005 and 2008 for increasing and taking forward the warm front scheme. Those are important initiatives. If people want to build consensus, it is important to recognise what the Government have done.
	We need to recognise the challenges before us. A20 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2010 is a big step, which we will have to work hard to achieve. The Government's aspiration for 20 per cent. renewables by 2020 is regarded by many in the industry as impossible. Achieving our medium-term target of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 would be an amazingly hard step, not just for Government and domestically, but internationally, too.
	The Government have been extremely strong in raising climate change on the domestic agenda. Looking back to Kyoto, the role of the European Union was important, but so was that of our Deputy Prime Minister. Who would have thought that climate change would be one of the top two agenda issues at Gleneagles? That would have been unthinkable a decade ago. Keeping the discussion going to St. Petersburg in Russia was also an important step forward, as was the Gleneagles dialogue, a sophisticated diplomatic approach outside the United Nations framework, which, because of its size, will prove difficult. I was excited by what was achieved in Mexico last week, and I was disappointed at what remains to be done. I guess that all of us look forward to Nairobi next month. Again, it will be hard for us to make progress through the United Nations process. But it is important that the British Government continue to show leadership.
	The big challenge is post-Kyoto in 2012, which is only six years away. We need to use international discussions now to make our arguments for what comes next. I am not entirely clear about what should come next, but I do know that there is a false dichotomy between those who argue for targets and those who argue for technology. The real gain will be made by introducing targets that encourage new technologies, so that we have a target-led approach that produces market-led solutions through technology.
	The big challenge is carbon pricing, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) rightly said. If we are serious about making change, we have to secure a high, stable price for carbon that can be maintained for a long period. The buzz phrase in the industry—I hear it from British electricity generators—is carbon pricing that is long, loud and legal. As a catchphrase, that has much substance. The way to achieve that new, higher price for carbon is to build on what we have.
	I accept that phase 1 of the European emissions trading scheme is in its infancy, but there have already been difficulties. I suspect that phase 2, which we are working towards, will be much more robust. It is important that it is transparent, open and honest, and does not lead to anti-competitive behaviour across Europe. We must move towards a fair auctioning system, rather than the calculations that have been part of phase 1, in which vested interests and a "business as usual" approach have been prevalent.
	The real prize will be phase 3 of the European emissions trading scheme. The discussions of that phase have to be linked to the post-Kyoto discussions. We have to extend the European emissions trading scheme to aviation and other transport and industries that hon. Members have mentioned, and we must also extend it from Europe internationally. That is an amazing challenge.
	Unless we can achieve a firm, stable and high price for carbon, the new investment—in new plant and equipment—that we need alongside the change in behaviour, will not happen. Let us rally the consensus around carbon pricing. It will have real effects on the aviation industry. Members on both sides of the House have talked strongly about the threat of aviation, but a true trading system could help us to make progress on that.
	I am keen to achieve consensus, but let me strike a discordant note. It is easy to have a consensus about not very much. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have a consensus on climate change, but it is on the headline and the principle. When it comes to the mechanics of the necessary policies, it is hard to build consensus. For example, where does the Conservative party stand on wind farms? Are they giant bird blenders? Does the Conservative party want a moratorium? It should make its position clear.
	The Conservatives should also make their position clear on the renewables obligation. We have had some discussion of that this afternoon and it has been a useful mechanism for encouraging new technologies. We do need a more sophisticated system, and the energy review acknowledges that. The consultation on the issue has just started. I think that there is a place for nuclear, and a strong argument to support replacing nuclear with nuclear. However, if we argue that nuclear is the last resort, it is clear that that replacement will never happen.
	It is never easy to build consensus, but the climate change Bill that many hon. Members have mentioned in the debate would serve as a vehicle for a discussion and give us an opportunity to talk about consensus. There are merits in introducing year-on-year reductions, and the discussion about the Bill has, at the very least, raised the profile of the argument. Even so, difficulties remain, as any such Bill would involve domestic rather than international targets. It would introduce year-on-year changes, rather than the lengthy planning period—15 years at least, or perhaps even longer—needed for the introduction of a trading scheme. To that extent, it would deal in aspirations rather than mechanisms.
	I listened very carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about carbon budgeting. I hope that the Government will introduce relevant measures in the forthcoming Queen's Speech. Even if a Bill on carbon budgeting is not announced then, I hope that the possibility of introducing an overarching scheme to that end will be discussed further.
	When the Labour party renews itself—hopefully next spring—I hope that a policy initiative will be produced that will make a break with the Labour party of the past, and drive us on to becoming a new Labour party that is environmentally sensitive and in touch with people's aspirations for the future.
	My final point is more parochial. I come from a coal mining area, and coal has been facing a difficult time. Many people have said that we met our Kyoto targets because of the dash for gas, although I think that our success in that regard is due to the coal industry's decline. However, I was pleased that the energy review spoke strongly about coal having a place in the future.
	Real problems exist at the moment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) noted, UK Coal, our biggest producer, is arguing about price with generators such as EDF. We can sort out difficulties like that, but the challenge for coal has to do with the environment rather than economics.
	The question of how we burn coal—whether we use supercritical boilers or go down the gasification route—is immaterial, as the market will decide that. More important just now is the fact that people like Richard Budge and his company called Powerfuel, together with Powergen and RWE, are looking to bring new, cleaner coal plants onstream. The problem that they face is that the carbon allowance offered to new entrants to the market is only 40 per cent. of the benchmark level for a new gas plant. Therefore, people who want to bring in cleaner coal technology are left at a competitive disadvantage. It cannot be sensible policy to prohibit or restrict new entrants to the market who will be cleaner producers of energy from coal when the comparators for them are plants that are more polluting. The Government must look at that problem, as a matter of urgency.
	In addition, we must move away from the notion of carbon capture and sequestration, even though the concept is a good one and I am pleased that experiments are taking place, such as at the new Powergen plant on the north Norfolk coast and at the proposed RWE plant on the Thames. Carbon capture has plenty of potential, and it could be used to enhance our oilfields, but it is not a silver bullet. The technology is at a rudimentary stage. One of the things that I want from the Stern review, which will be published shortly, is an acknowledgement that carbon capture and storage will be good for the UK and that investing money now will save money in the long run.
	We want new coal plant in the UK, but that is as nothing compared to the demand for coal in India and China. In this country and in Europe, we must demonstrate that we can burn coal more cleanly and deal with the consequences of carbon emissions. Saving a tonne of carbon in India or China has equal consequences for us in the west; we live in a global world.
	My message to our Government is that although they have achieved a lot, they must continue to hit their targets. Unless they do so, we will lose the moral high ground—the leadership that could take us to a greener, cleaner environment in the future.

James Duddridge: I shall try to keep my comments as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I should like a more substantial debate in the future, based on a Bill similar to the one proposed by Friends of the Earth.
	I am proud to be a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has been conducting a timely inquiry into various elements of climate change. Last month, we reported on renewable energy and biofuels. We are currently taking evidence about what individual citizens can do, and we will shortly be looking at the longer-term policy agenda.
	We recently visited China, which was incredibly insightful. We went to a car factory, where we were told of the rather worrying aspiration to give every Chinese family a car. Several politicians spoke to us frankly about climate change; they shared their distrust of capitalism and what the west is saying. One of them summarised their views well when he said, "Look, you've had your industrial revolution, you've had your chance to develop. Now it's our turn." But if they develop as we have done, it will kill off the planet.
	It is essential that the international community works together, but the impact of China and India does not mean that we should not act as individual citizens. That Chinese politician said, "We want to see you suffer as well", and asked why we did not all have photovoltaic cells and solar power. If we expect the Chinese to change, we need to change even more.
	We must take climate change even more seriously than we do already. At Cabinet level there is already a precedent for cross-cutting Ministers. There should be a Minister solely responsible for climate change, not with a full Department but with a team that cuts across Departments. It is not enough just to have a climate change office, although it is a step in the right direction.
	Flooding and housing are significant issues in my constituency and, more generally, in the adaptation and mitigation debates. In my constituency, the Environment Agency is consulting about flood defences in the Great Wakering area, where there is an enormous risk of flooding, as there is throughout south Essex. This morning, I met Charles Beardall, the very good manager of the Environment Agency's eastern region. He told me an astonishing fact—I had to make him repeat it three times because I thought he had got it wrong: a house built this year with only a one in 1,000 chance of flooding every year will have a one in eight chance by 2080. I have a newborn son, and those houses could flood within his lifetime. Building in the Thames Gateway—let alone in a number of other areas—makes no sense to me when we are subject to those risks. In fact, we are considering building more than 120,000 houses in the Thames Gateway by 2016. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
	We must do more about the standard of the houses that are built. It is quite criminal that we let houses be built to such a low standard. I am not one of those people who say that we should compel companies to include solar panels, photovoltaic cells, water butts or insulation. We need to set overall standards, and companies can innovate as a result of them. For example, we could say that half the water consumed by the House must be collected locally, or that the House must produce half the energy that it consumes, and it does not matter whether a wind farm or photovoltaic heating is used to do so. If we are prescriptive, we will stifle innovation, and it is important that we do not do that.
	Action on new housing will also pump-prime the marketplace. The Chinese were very entrepreneurial in many ways. They were saying, "We want you to have photovoltaic cells. In fact, we can produce them very cheaply if you buy in volume." Joking apart, such things will be beneficial, and high-profile environmental activities help to educate people. Certainly, when the Select Committee went to Leicester to see eco-houses and wind farms in schools, we could see that that was helping to educate children.
	We have done an awful lot to date, but there is so much more to do. We need a climate change Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs misread his speech earlier on, because I was diametrically opposed to what he seemed to say. I think that he said that he believed that we would be judged not by results, but by how we get there. I think that he probably got that the wrong way around—we will be judged by results—and the Friends of the Earth Bill would put down a base point that all future Governments could aim for and achieve. That would overcome some of the electoral resistance to some of the very difficult and tough decisions that we must take.

Jo Swinson: I am sure that most hon. Members have, like me, received dozens of letters, e-mails, surgery visits and phone calls on the subject of climate change and, most recently, on the importance of having a climate change Bill in the Queen's speech in November. I welcome the opportunity to add my voice and the voices of the residents of East Dunbartonshire to the calls for such a Bill. I hope that Ministers will take the interest in this debate and the fact that 380 Members have signed the early-day motion calling for such a Bill as a clear sign that it must be a priority. I hope that such a Bill will be taken forward in November because we must have annual targets on reducing carbon dioxide emissions so that we can see in the House what progress is being made every single year and so that hon. Members can hold the Government to account. A long-term target on its own will not help us to tackle the problem.
	In among lots of constituency work during the parliamentary recess—it is not a long holiday, as some in the media would have us believe—I took time out to go to the cinema to watch "An Inconvenient Truth". I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen the film and I wholeheartedly recommend it to those who have not. Perhaps the film should be essential viewing because it puts in the starkest possible terms the scale of the problem that we face. However, the film is not depressing because it does not say that there is nothing that we can do about the problem. On the contrary, it encourages every single citizen who sees it to play their part, take their responsibilities serious and lobby their representatives. I especially liked the bit at the end of the film when a list of actions that people can take is shown as the credits roll. Obviously, there is a slight American bias, because people are encouraged to contact their Member of Congress and senator. The film suggests that if the representatives do not take the viewers seriously, they should run for Congress themselves. I thought that that was good advice, and we should all be aware that we will have constituents who will expect us to take the problem incredibly seriously.
	Many hon. Members who have spoken have rightly highlighted the international and European dimensions of how we will tackle the problem. However, it is also hugely important to focus on what individuals can do. We know about the little energy-saving measures that could lead to massive cuts in the release of carbon dioxide if lots of people carried them out. Such measures include changing to energy-saving light bulbs and using public transport rather than a car, especially for shorter journeys, or perhaps leaving the car at home and walking. They also include increasing recycling, turning the thermostat down a few degrees and turning appliances off, instead of on to stand-by. One would think that all those little things would not make a huge difference, but they can be important.
	Obviously, we all consume energy and are thus responsible for a certain amount of carbon emissions. I encourage people to make themselves aware of the ways in which they can offset their carbon emissions. Organisations such as Climate Care and carbonneutral.com give lots of information about how that can be done. By planting trees or investing in renewable energies, it is possible to offset the carbon tonnes that one emits. I recently logged on to do the calculations so that I could pay for my carbon offset and I encourage other hon. Members to do the same, especially because our job requires a huge amount of travelling, so we are perhaps responsible for higher than average carbon emissions.
	I have an issue that I would like to raise with the Leader of the House, so perhaps the Ministers present can communicate it to him. Something that will need to change is our beloved institution, the House of Commons, as it starts to address climate change issues. Heating has been mentioned, and we have recently seen better recycling facilities introduced, although others may agree that it is a bit strange that we had to wait until 2005 for that. I hope that the House authorities will take on board the fact that we need to lead by example.
	There are so many aspects of climate change that it is impossible to cover them all, so I should like to focus on waste and recycling, which are very important. Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that we are most concerned about, but the second most important is methane. Landfill waste produces most of the UK's methane at the moment. Some 648 kilotons of methane were released from landfill in 2005. I welcome moves to reduce the amount of our waste being sent to landfill annually; indeed, many councils are currently grappling with how to deal with the impact of the landfill tax, which increases year on year, and the fines that will be imposed if we do not get to grips with how much we send to landfill and how much we recycle.
	East Dunbartonshire council has recently moved to fortnightly refuse collections for residual waste but at the same time is investing hugely in recycling facilities, with doorstep recycling happening weekly. Garden waste, glass, plastics, cans, paper and cardboard are collected, and the council hopes to increase the amount of materials collected. That was not an easy step to take, and it is fair to say that the local reaction has not been unanimously in support of the change. I am sure that in other areas where that have happened there has been a similar reaction. However, this bold environmental step is necessary. It is regrettable that in my area Labour and the Conservatives opposed the move, and I suspect that in other parts of the country they themselves have had to implement similar schemes. It is an example of the changes that individuals will increasingly have to make to their behaviour that are difficult at first but in the long term will help us to tackle the problem.
	It is important that the Government and business play a role. Looking at the UK plastics industry, we see that our recovery figures—the energy that we get back from plastics—are awful compared with our European counterparts. Less than a quarter of our plastic is recovered in some way for energy, and a tiny proportion is recycled. Our European neighbours are far better at that than us. Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland manage to recover or recycle over 75 per cent.
	Obviously, some plastics are easier to recycle than others, and we can only take things to be recycled if there is a market for the recycled plastic. It is important that the Government encourage business through best practice not only to create things out of materials that can be recycled, but to use recycled materials to help to create that market. If encouragement and the sharing of best practice cannot succeed in changing behaviour, regulation will be required.
	A related issue on which we need to take urgent action is the excess packaging that we see every day when we go to the supermarket. One goes to buy a few apples, which one would previously have put in a bag and taken to the checkout, but now they come in a foam tray, they have a bit of card around them and the whole thing is shrink-wrapped in plastic. Crucially, a lot of that material cannot be recycled, and it is consumers, our constituents, who have to pay for it—not once but three times. They pay for the excess packaging at the checkout; they pay the landfill tax through their council tax bills for getting rid of rubbish; and there is the environmental cost. Business must take this more seriously, and if it does not, the Government must make it do so.
	That is just one of the many issues raised in the debate that are important to solving the problem of climate change. I hope that Ministers will address those concerns and take them seriously. Climate change is happening, and it is happening quickly. Action is needed now, and if we are not successful the worst of the consequences will not be faced by today's Ministers or even most of the MPs in this House. It is my generation, and our children and children's children, who will face the brunt of climate change and inherit this dreadful legacy. Everyone in the UK has a responsibility to tackle this problem, and we as legislators must take a lead. A climate change Bill in the Queen's Speech is a vital first step, but only the first step on a long and challenging journey.

Nia Griffith: I congratulate the Secretary of State on giving us such an excellent exposé and clearly making the case for concerted action to combat climate change.
	We can argue for ever and a day about the role of climate change Bills and targets, but the important thing is to devise solutions and implement them. Some solutions will be short term, some will be medium term and others will be long term. Some will involve more Government intervention and others will mean more individual responsibility, and we need to get the balance right.
	I was lucky enough last week to have the opportunity to see a tidal turbine, courtesy of Marine Current Turbines. It is an exciting project. We watched the tide come in—it is totally predictable—and produce enough energy for 800 homes. A few of those could obviously fuel a town, and we all know how many towns are close to the coast. There are therefore many opportunities, and I believe that the company is hoping to sort something out in Northern Ireland after Christmas. It will be its first commercial project there.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) for raising the subject of clean coal technology, which it is crucial to examine. Thirty-five per cent. of our electricity is generated by coal in our existing power stations, and that rose to 50 per cent. in the cold spell last winter. Clearly, we will depend on that for a considerable time. We should do everything possible to create a level playing field for clean coal technology. We should also consider using more of our indigenous coal. The scales have tipped and we are paying more for imported coal because of world coal markets than we are giving our producers at home. That has serious implications not only for security of supply and balance of payments but for the local economy and transport. Why do we waste fuel transporting coal around the world when we have it here? We need clean coal technology and carbon capture technology. If we can get ahead of the game, we can not only use it here but export it to countries such as China and India, which will clearly use coal for a long time.
	I want to consider not only the big solutions—the expert solutions, such as developing renewables and clean coal technology—but what we can do in the immediate future. We must convey the message that we cannot wait 10, 15 or 20 years, and that we have to act now. I shall make some suggestions that may be unpopular, but I should like to open the debate on them, and I hope that hon. Members will genuinely consider what we can do.
	We should seriously consider speed limits. We all want our cars and the freedom to go to places and be flexible, and the individual opportunity that those of us who own cars enjoy. But why could we not simply decide to have a much reduced speed limit? There are advanced countries where 50 mph is the norm. There is a psychological effect: when someone who is driving at 50 mph sees that everybody else is travelling at 70 mph or 80 mph, they feel that they are going very slowly. A psychological change could easily lead to a change in behaviour. There would be cost consequences: people would immediately save money on fuel and in other ways. Few people realise how much of an economy they can make just by travelling more slowly, but they cannot do that at the moment, because unless everybody else does so, they will feel that they are slowing everybody down. So I suggest a national speed limit of 50 mph, which would have the obvious added effect of making our roads safer. Speed is frequently a factor in fatal and serious accidents.
	We could also look at our urban speed limits. Speed is an extremely important factor in serious urban road accidents, and many road safety campaigns are highlighting the need for 20 mph limits in certain urban areas. Many Members will have had constituents coming to them who are desperate to get drivers to slow down as they pass their front doors. But those who complain about that can the next moment be driving a modern car themselves, not realising that they are going at a considerable speed. We have the ability to drive at speed, but we cannot change our human reaction speed. It would be nice if we could achieve a sea change in mentality, so that slowing down could truly be considered.
	I now turn to the really controversial bit. In order to make this a cheap change, I suggest that we interpret all our current speed signs not as miles per hour, but as kilometres per hour. If we do that, we will not need to change any of the national speed limit signs—50 mph would be 80 kph—because we do not have 70 mph signs; instead, because we have a national speed limit, we have "end of speed limit" signs. So 30 mph signs in towns would actually mean 30 kph, which is approximately 20 mph, and 40 mph signs would mean 40 kph, which is about 25 mph. That would also deal with the many requests that we receive for improved traffic-calming measures and the introduction of speed cameras.
	That solution would cost very little, and it has the nice advantage that it could easily be copied by many other countries. As has been mentioned many times today, these issues affect not just our own country but our fellow European Union member states and the rest of the world. If we can do something, that would be a good example to others.
	Car-sharing is an old idea that has been mentioned many times before, but we must promote it in partnership with our local government colleagues, because it is something that we really can do. I know that people are terrified of the idea of being tied to somebody else's routine for five days a week, so let us introduce the idea in a more user-friendly way. If we were to car-share three days a week, people would still have two days when they could pop off to the shops, or whatever. The benefits in terms of congestion in towns, for example, would be enormous. We see so many queues of cars waiting to go through traffic lights with one person in each car, but if there were three or four people per car, the traffic would move three or four times more quickly.
	There would also be benefits in terms of pressure on parking. In many town centres, people coming in to work clog up parking spaces, and as a result nobody can come in to shop or to visit the town. That has a detrimental effect on local traders and persuades people to use the big out-of-town shopping centres. There would also be an impact on air quality in towns, because fewer cars would lead to less pollution; andthe impact on climate change goes without saying. There would also be economic savings for commuters. The implementation costs—education, advertisingand promotion—would be extremely modest, and implementation could be achieved very quickly.
	So there is hope. As we have seen with the ozone layer, it is possible to reverse trends, and we should grasp that hope as we address climate change. We must make the necessary decisions, although I accept that they are very difficult to make because they extend much further than simply the issue of the ozone layer. It is easy to give up using spray cans—like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I have long since given up using aerosols—but it is important that we grasp the nettle and act immediately to begin to halt, and then to reverse, the effects of climate change.

Andrew Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record, which I am happy to acknowledge, and he is absolutely right. If I had time for a longer speech, I would quickly expand on that area.
	It is true that opportunities are being missed all the time. My Bill specifically included a provision that now allows the Government to make regulations on the introduction of intelligent metering. Between 2000 and 2004, my Bill received Royal Assent, I am delighted to say, but between those dates 2 million electricity meters were installed to the old standards. My Bill came into force in September 2004. Between then and now, another 2 million electricity meters have been installed to the old standards, because the provisions of my Bill have not been implemented by the Government.
	I simply say that, although I was delighted by what the Secretary of State had to say—he was very encouraging—it is a pity that he has only just discovered what the Deputy Prime Minister knew in 1998, which is that this is an urgent problem that needs immediate action. The Secretary of State said that he was proud of this, that and the other, and proud of something else. I am pleased about that as well, but—and that is the big "but"—carbon dioxide emissions are still going up.
	To take a very small example, it costs about £5 to install an intelligent meter, as opposed to the stupid meters we are installing at present. Installing 4 million—which have been put in since 2000, when the first legislative opportunity was missed—would have cost an extra £20 million, but that would have meant a significant fraction of UK households having the capacity to install renewable generation plant without even having to blink, and removed one of the important barriers to installation.
	What I want to hear from the Secretary of State, and from the Minister when he makes the winding-up speech, is exactly what they are planning to do. The importance of having a Bill in the Queen's Speech lies not in the Bill itself, or in precisely what that Bill says, but in giving a timetable for performance that can be checked year by year.
	I want to say something to the Minister, and I really would like to hear the answer. My Bill—now my Act—contains a requirement for the Government to report to the House every two years what progress they have made. It came into force in September 2004; it is now October 2006. The two years are up and the report has not been issued, and it looks as though when it does come, it will be pretty thin.
	Yes, let us have another Act, and let it be Government legislation. The Government supported my Bill, as did, I am delighted to report, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who was one of my sponsors. It was also supported by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell and by Members all over the House. The support was apparently unanimous, yet the Bill has not been implemented. Having a Bill in the Queen's Speech is important, as is having the right things in it, but let us hear from the Minister exactly what he is going to do, and how he is going to tell us about it.
	I suggest that the first thing the Minister should do is talk to the Department for Communities and Local Government. It holds my Bill in trust—and it is not delivering. Talk to the Department of Trade and Industry, too, because it is responsible for generation and renewables, as well as the creation of new energy sources. Talk to the Department for Transport, because transport is an important sector, which has to be tackled. Talk to the Treasury, because taxation is also a significant element of this.
	The most important thing is for the Secretary of State to be clear in his own mind that while we can produce press releases, and perhaps burn up political capital on statements, declarations and conferences, as well as playing about over what we do with our cars, what will make a difference in this country is whether we tackle the built environment, in which 50 per cent. of the energy we use is wasted, even though we already have on the statute book the legislation that can deal with it.
	Will the Minister agree to take action where he does not need to do anything special? All he needs to do is sign a couple of orders, get a few things going and cut the energy waste of the built environment by 50 per cent. That, surely, is an offer he cannot refuse.

Philip Dunne: That is a remarkably insightful intervention. I intended to refer to a point that I came across yesterday when we were talking about food procurement in the Public Accounts Committee. Other hon. Members have mentioned the DHL contract, but out of the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Ministry of Defence, only the latter is seriously considering the sustainability of its food procurement and is bothering to visit other countries to ensure that livestock is reared in accordance with UK welfare standards. The other Departments have made no progress on that issue, save some lip service paid to local procurement.
	There is a place for regulation. Other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), referred to a climate change Bill and I am proud to have signed up to the "big ask", mainly because it will impose on the Government an obligation to report back to this House, and to be seen to introduce measures that will start to help to meet the targets. I am instinctively not someone who seeks to impose undue regulation on business, but in this case the issue is so significant that it requires a stimulus—and this stimulus is right.
	There is also a place for taxation. There has been some discussion of party conferences recently, and I enjoyed a debate at our party conference with members of the Liberal Democrats, in which we discussed the question, "Who are the tax cutters now?" The issue of green taxation is therefore something that I have considered in some detail. The Liberal Democrats' proposals have some gaping holes, because the behavioural changes that the taxation is designed to introduce will reduce the revenues on which they hope to rely, should their policies ever come into force.

Philip Dunne: I do not want to turn this into a slanging match between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats on their respective proposals for green taxation. However, I will just say that the impact on aviation use of the significant fuel price increases of the past five years has been negligible. How a tax on air tickets would have an impact has yet to be explained.
	Finally, I shall deal briefly with the role that the Government have to play in technical innovation, leadership and pump-priming for technological solutions. There are various examples of Government putting their toe in the water and trying to introduce market solutions by means of pump-priming, but the results have been disappointing. The clear skies initiative came to an end earlier this year, and has been replaced by a scheme that provides less funding for households to convert their energy sources to renewables such as solar. That is very disappointing, given all the rhetoric about what the Government are doing to encourage just that.
	The Minister is due to visit Church Stretton in my constituency next month to address a climate change symposium organised by the Methodists. I should like to invite him to come to see a scheme, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that involves the first operating anaerobic digester in the country, by means of which putrescible household and green waste is turned into electricity
	The scheme has been set up by South Shropshire district council, with full cross-party support from Liberal Democrat, Conservative and independent councillors. I am afraid that the council does not contain any Labour councillors, but I should like to show the Minister the facility in action. The Department has a pot of money to fund such projects that amounts to £30 million, and £2 million has been made available to support the initiative in my constituency. However, the disappointing thing is that it is the only one that is up and running, and my impression is that most of the money devoted to other initiatives across the country has been absorbed by legal fees, research and feasibility studies. I am sure that the Minister will be keen to see the project, given that there is very little else to show for all the work that has been done.
	Science has a big part to play in these matters. British companies are innovative and keen to take advantage of whatever pump-priming the Government are prepared to put in place. They are willing to meet the regulatory burdens placed on them in the search for alternative solutions, and that is why I was impressed to hear that my party is proposing a prize for innovation in the commercial development of wave technology. That is an example of the imagination needed to get such enterprises going.
	For example, we had a drought this summer. Why did no one suggest undertaking the commercial exploitation of desalination? The world needs more water, and I am not aware of a single commercial desalination plant that does not rely on subsidy. It is exactly the sort of project on which leading British universities can bring their expertise to bear in finding a practical solution.

Lynne Featherstone: I have received some 800 cards from members of Friends of the Earth in relation to the "big ask", and I am sure that other hon. Members will have received a similar number. I want to add the voice of Hornsey and Wood Green to the call for a climate change Bill. If one does not ask, one does not get—so I am asking!
	People around the country want to take responsibility in these matters. As we have heard today, that sense of personal responsibility goes hand in hand with the global need to address the threat to our world. Everyone in this Chamber is a committed environmentalist to some degree, and the question that we have to answer has to do with how we get that message across.
	Education and the dissemination of information are very important, and I am sure that the House will agree that Al Gore's film about climate change bridges the gap between what this House knows and what the man in the street is ready to take into his soul. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider arranging for the film to be shown in secondary schools, as that would be intensely useful. Members will be delighted to know that I have tabled an early-day motion urging them all to support seeing the film. I even tried to word the motion so that Members could sign it only if they had seen the film, but unfortunately the rules of the House did not allow me to do so. It was a name-and-shame plot that did not work.
	Climate change issues are important at every level. Housing and energy are absolutely critical and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) made a good case for the implementation of his measure, the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004, sooner rather than later.
	I am worried about transport issues and very much liked the suggestion about speed limits made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). It is a good idea and would be cheap to implement. The ease with which ordinary people can do things and the cheapness of proposals is important.
	I want briefly to speak about travel planning, which involves a lifestyle survey of an area to find out who could give up their car and what public transport is available. There is no chance of change for 30 per cent. of people, but others can make changes if they are given the right information and support. In Perth, in southern Australia, travel planning reduced congestion by 15 per cent., which is about the same reduction as under the congestion charge, but without even a penny of investment in infrastructure.
	Many people will not get on a bus because they do not know where it goes or where to change buses. Travel planning is a good thing, because it shows people what they can do. I championed it when I was chair of transport at the London assembly. Indeed, Transport for London has just sent me a travel planning survey form, so it has now arrived in Hornsey and Wood Green. We are okay in London, but many areas of the country could never undertake travel planning because they do not have the public transport infrastructure to develop it. There is a woeful need for investment in public transport.
	Even in London, where I have used public transport for six years, I was forced back into my car by the collapse of the Northern line last November and its ongoing problems thereafter. As I had to use my car I decided not to use planes, so I made some strange, but enjoyable, train journeys around Europe this summer. However, I had to catch a plane to go to Prague.
	Ordinary people have ordinary lives, and my experience shows that, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, we can carbon-offset our consciences if we have to use aeroplanes. We should think about disseminating those means and mechanisms to the ordinary folk. We must all do our bit. We do not have to wear hair shirts and never use our cars, but each of us needs to do a little and there are many ways to do it.
	The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) was right in the structural point she made. If we are to have car sharing or car clubs, or when people have to charge an electrical car in the street, local authorities need to make things feasible and easy through planning regulations. They should not stand in the way of such innovations, as often seems to be the case.
	For all those reasons I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak in the debate and I call onthe Government to introduce a climate change Bill in the Queen's Speech.

Gregory Barker: But at least twice on the Labour Benches.
	It is nearly 18 years since Margaret Thatcher alerted the world to the dangers of climate change, in a landmark address to the Royal Society. Since that groundbreaking speech, which called for action against global warming, and was reinforced by subsequent speeches to the United Nations, Britain has continued to play an international leadership role.
	I start by paying tribute to the current Prime Minister and successive Labour Environment Ministers for keeping the issue of climate change on the international agenda. Indeed, the appointment of the new Foreign Secretary, who has a record of commitment to tackling carbon dioxide emissions and a sound understanding of the issues, has undoubtedly further reinforced Britain's international reputation in the field. The new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—wherever he is at the moment—clearly has a very real personal commitment.
	We may not have a written agreement, sadly, but there is a consensus in British politics about the need to tackle the causes of climate change. This afternoon's debate has demonstrated the breadth of concern right across the Chamber. Barely a week goes by now without yet more scientific studies reporting that climate change is not only happening, but increasing at a faster rate than previously anticipated and that the effects are being felt more widely and more acutely with every passing year.
	Since Margaret Thatcher made that famous speech at the end of the 1980s, we have witnessed a succession of the hottest years on record. In the past decade, we have seen not just a rise in global temperatures, but a catastrophic increase in extreme weather across the globe—whether shown by Hurricane Katrina in the northern hemisphere, the onset of previously unheard of hurricanes in the southern hemisphere, flooding in south-east Asia or the relentless onward march of drought and desertification across Africa. At the north and south poles, the icecaps continue to shrink at an alarming rate.
	We have gone beyond the point at which it is sufficient simply to alert the world to the dangers of climate change. We are now entering a crucial stage in the battle against global warming. We are now entering what leading scientific opinion calls the tipping point. In the most sensible part of the Secretary of State's opening speech, he quite rightly referred to the window of opportunity that we now have to stabilise carbon in the atmosphere at 450 to 550 parts per million, but that window will close.
	As several hon. Members have so clearly articulated this afternoon, unless we, the developed world, act decisively in the next few years significantly to reduce our carbon emissions, any future reduction may well be in vain because the carbon in the atmosphere will be sufficient to ensure the onset of the most extreme aspects of climate change. That is why this afternoon's debate is so important and why it is so vital that the Government turn more of their words into action.
	I do not doubt that the DEFRA Ministers are in earnest in their desire to tackle our nation's carbon emissions, but the fact is that we in the UK are still emitting more carbon in 2006 than we were in 1997. I applaud the Government's efforts to take a global leadership position on climate change, but that rings a little hollow when it is not matched by successful action at home. Taken in the round, and being honest, Labour's record on climate change has been good, but in the face of such an enormous challenge, it is simply not good enough. We must see far greater urgency and a willingness to take decisions now.
	The Conservative party, sadly, has the enforced luxury of opposition. Despite the turbulence on the Government Benches, sadly, we are not anticipating a general election anytime soon. So we Conservatives are taking time to study the problem carefully, to consult widely and to draw in Britain's greatest experts, as well as to look abroad for inspiration, so that we are prepared and ready to hit the ground running when we take over the reins of government. However, Ministers are the Government; they have a very real responsibility to act now. Already too much time has been wasted on endless iterative consultations and short-term initiatives, some of which have merit; but in total, they have failed to produce sufficient cuts in carbon emissions, which we so desperately need to achieve. Such a commitment must be shared right across the Government, not just in DEFRA.
	Personally, while speaking in the Committee that considered the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006, I frequently saw a willingness to be progressive and ambitious in DEFRA or in the DTI, but I constantly saw that undermined by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Treasury. Perhaps there would be less resistance right across Whitehall if Ministers heeded the remarks of the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen), not just his praise for Mrs. Thatcher, but his plea for a renewed effort for a genuine cross-party consensus on climate change.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has said, tackling climate change is our social responsibility to the next generation; but, in politics, it is much easier to take the steps that will be painful if political parties work together, instead of just playing things for partisan advantage—and I am looking particularly at the Liberal Benches when I make those remarks. Therefore, although Conservative Members continue to hold the Government to account for their actions, or lack of action, with increasing vigour, we recognise that, with the politics of climate change, business as usual, as we understand it at Westminster, is not appropriate. Just as this House came together in the face of global terrorism, we need to come together with an equal degree of purpose to fight the greatest long-term challenge human kind faces this century.
	There have been a host of thoughtful, well judged and provocative contributions from both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) contributed to the debate at the outset, demonstrating her knowledge and immense personal expertise. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) made a thoughtful and well informed contribution that demonstrated his expertise. He quite clearly stated that one does not have to be a fan of the euro, or want to sign up to a federal constitution, to see the need for an effective EU collective voice on the environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), who is a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, spoke with great expertise about the impact of climate change on his constituency. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was quite right to say that we can all take individual actions to make a difference.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) spoke passionately about the importance of adaptation. Of course we can and must do more in that respect, but we must not lose our single most important focus on taking action now to avert the need to take adaptation measures later. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), in a short, but pithy speech, was quite right to say that there is no excuse for the Government not to bring in a climate change Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne), in a speech in which he demonstrated great vision and ambition for further innovation, again impressed on the House the need for cross-party consensus. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) came up with the excellent idea of showing Al Gore's film in every secondary school in the UK. I wholeheartedly agree.
	If this debate shows anything, it is not that the Government are moving in the wrong direction—there is much in the Government's programme that we support—but simply that they are not moving fast enough or with sufficient urgency. Where are the big actions to back the big thinking? They were certainly not mentioned in the energy review, which turned out to be a rather timid and unambitious document. Where are the steps to make decentralised energy a reality? Where are the steps to turn energy efficiency from a small-scale incremental programme into an urgent and demanding national roll-out? Where are the measures to reform the remit of Ofgem to focus more directly on carbon emissions and not just price? Where are the measures to reform the renewables obligation, to move the share of funding for renewables beyond just onshore wind and landfill methane gas to the whole universe of exciting emerging technologies?
	Where are the measures to deal responsibly with aviation? Where are the measures to allow progressive local councils, which can play a key role in reducing the carbon footprint of new UK housing and new-build commercial and industrial premises, to go faster and further in raising eco-standards than the Government are prepared to do nationally? Where are the measures to unleash in a truly meaningful way the green growth that we require to halt the brain drain of British talent and expertise in renewable technology—measures to underpin progressive business and stimulate new demand for sustainable technology? Where are the changes to stimulate green business opportunities and the measures to ensure that we are at the forefront of solutions to climate change, and do not just follow in the wake of our European partners?
	This debate has covered a great deal of ground and given the Minister a great deal to respond to, but at its heart is one clear message, which comes from Members on the Benches all around him and which comes loud and clear from the Conservatives: we need a climate change Bill in the Queen's Speech. We need a climate change Bill that will require Ministers to draw up plans to deliver the year-on-year cuts in CO2 emissions needed to prevent dangerous climate change; a climate change Bill that will require an annual report to Parliament on progress in meeting those targets; a climate change Bill that will keep emissions on track by requiring any Government falling behind the targets to improve policies and create new powers to monitor Ministers' progress; and a climate change Bill that would also be an opportunity to make any regulatory changes required to begin reducing carbon emissions. If the Government are prepared to bring forth such a measure in November, they will not buy our silence, but they will gain our active and genuine support.
	It is vital that we all face up to the threat of global warming with a sense of common purpose. However, we should continue to challenge each other across the Floor of the House to go further, faster and deeper in finding solutions to global warming. We are at the tipping point. Time is running out, but Conservative Members are optimistic that if we can find the will, time still remains to face down the challenge of climate change together.

Ian Pearson: I am afraid not. If I do, I will not have time to respond to the many other comments made during the debate.
	This Government are one of the few currently on course to meet our Kyoto targets. In fact, we will almost double the reductions that we set through the Kyoto process. We have, with the climate change programme and the energy review, a range of policy measures that are setting us on a path towards reducing CO2 emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050. We need to do more, and I want to respond directly to a number of specific points made in the debate.
	First, on the question of a Bill, I am sure that the House will not expect me to divulge what is or is not in the Queen's Speech, but I can say that we are examining carefully the case for a statutory framework. We are having discussions about that and we are well aware of the strength of feeling of hon. Members and many of their constituents who have written to them on these issues.
	The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) referred to the climate change levy and agreements. I know that he and his party are not in favour of the levy, but by the end of last year that measure had saved16.5 million tonnes of carbon and it will go on to save approximately 3.5 million tonnes a year. It is an important part of tackling emissions.
	In an important contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) mentioned clean coal and the importance of carbon capture and storage as a future technology. The International Energy Agency has highlighted that, and I think that it is key to the future. It will be vital for countries such as China and the United States, which will continue to burn fossil fuels. Making sure that they do that in a carbon-neutral way is crucial.
	The shadow junior environment Minister said from a sedentary position that he thought the renewables obligation a waste of money. That is emphatically not the case. It has enabled us to take a great leap forward in renewable electricity generation, which has almost trebled since it was introduced. There are 16 GW of applications in process, with a further 11,500 MW in the planning system. If we reach our targets, that will equate to about 2.5 million tonnes of carbon a year. That is another example of the Government being serious and introducing policy initiatives that will make a difference in reducing our CO2 emissions.

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the important issues surrounding neonatal care. There may not be as many speakers in this Adjournment debate as there were in the preceding one, and it may not go on as long, but I hope the response from the Minister on the Treasury Bench will be as positive as that given to the preceding debate.
	BLISS, which is funded almost entirely through donations and grants, is the leading national charity focusing on neonatal care and has been established for more than 25 years. I appreciate the support that the charity has provided to me in making me aware of the amazing work that goes on in neonatal care, as well as some of the challenges. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister will be presenting an award at the inaugural BLISS ceremony on 24 October, which confirms the Government's respect for BLISS.
	One in eight babies born in the UK requires neonatal care, which represents 80,000 children, 17,000 of whom will require intensive care. About 11,000 babies in London each year need the extra care provided in neonatal units. The majority of the babies in neonatal units are there because they were born prematurely. However, there are a diverse range of other causes. For example, a child born with an infection might require antibiotics, some children need help to breathe via a ventilator, and other children with a serious case of jaundice may need to kept under observation in a neonatal unit.
	The strides taken forward in the past two decades are there for us all to see. In the mid-1980s only one in five babies weighing less than 1 kg at birth could survive. That proportion has increased rapidly and stands at four in five babies. The fact that four in five babies now survive, compared with one in five in the 1980s, is testament not only to the technological advances achieved in this period, but to the tireless efforts of doctors and nurses who, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree, can never receive too much praise.
	The number of babies born prematurely has also increased significantly in recent years. A number of social factors have contributed to the escalating numbers of premature births. The increased prevalence of fertility treatment has resulted in a corresponding rise in multiple births, which are more likely to result in premature labour. When women have children later in life there is an increased prospect of obstetric complications, particularly if mothers are over 40 years of age at the time of giving birth. Babies born as a result of teenage pregnancy are also at high risk of being born premature and/or at a low birth-weight. Unfortunately, the UK still has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe. Mothers from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to give birth to a baby with a low birth-weight.
	The need for effective neonatal care is becoming ever more apparent and growing. However, the capacity of neonatal services is not sufficient to cope with the current demand, let alone future needs. I welcomed the Government's additional targeted funding of £72 million between 2003 and 2006, which among other benefits helped to establish five neonatal networks across London, a neonatal transfer service to transport babies to an alternative hospital when necessary, and an increase in capacity.
	The Greater London authority report, "Counting the Cots", which was published in May this year, also highlighted the point that the number of neonatal cots in London has increased by 12 per cent. in the past four years. London has 77 more neonatal cots in 2006 than it had in 2002. The report concluded that
	"neonatal care services are generally working well",
	for which the Government deserve huge praise.
	Notwithstanding that encouraging progress, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises the urgent need to go even further. In July this year, I visited the neonatal unit at St. George's hospital in my constituency for the second time in recent months. The visit provided me with the opportunity to meet the parents of premature babies and the staff, who make an invaluable contribution. Visiting a neonatal unit is a reminder of how our NHS does a fantastic job giving hope and joy to the parents of those tiny miracles. Premature babies are some of the most vulnerable patients, and they are looked after by skilled, specialist caring staff, who also provide tremendous support to understandably distressed parents.
	St. George's hospital plays an integral role in the provision of neonatal care in south-west London. The Department of Health review, which was published in April 2003, recommended that neonatal care should be reconstructed into clinical networks with units divided into three levels depending on the level of care that the hospital can provide. First, there are intensive care units, where one nurse looks after one baby. Those units are necessary for babies with particularly complicated medical needs. Secondly, there are high-dependency units, where a nurse should be responsible for no more than two babies. Those units are necessary for babies weighing less than 1 kg who do not need intensive care, but who still require treatment, such as intravenous feeding. Finally, there are special care units, where a nurse should not have responsibility for more than four babies. Those units are necessary for babies who require regular monitoring.
	The system ensures that each region has at least one hospital that can offer so-called level 3 intensive care support for the mothers of premature or ill babies. I am pleased that the hospital in my constituency where my two daughters were born not so long ago—I was also born there slightly longer ago—offers the most advanced neonatal care in south-west London. The Government recommend that 95 per cent. of premature babies should be cared for within their local network, but too many mothers still have to travel hundreds of miles to obtain the appropriate level of neonatal care.
	More than 90 per cent. of units were compelled to transfer patients last year because of lack of capacity. The neonatal units at St. George's hospital accepted transfer cases from areas such as Brighton, Farnborough, Southampton and Wrexham Park, which is near Slough. While I accept that a system of networks is the most effective method of supporting parents, we cannot escape the fact that there needs to be an increase in the number of specialist nurses, cots and dedicated transport services to alleviate those concerns. In that regard, many hon. Members hope that the Minister's excellent relationship with the Treasury, as result of his previous ministerial experience, will enable him successfully to lobby the Treasury in the 2007 spending review for an even greater prioritisation of funding to health services for sick and premature babies.
	The British Association of Perinatal Medicine believes that the average occupancy of neonatal units should be 70 per cent. to ensure that capacity is available in unforeseen circumstances. Recent research undertaken by BLISS highlighted that 78 per cent. of units nationwide have been forced to close to new admissions as a result of insufficient capacity. Furthermore, St. George's hospital has an average occupancy rate of 91 per cent. of its cots. In 2005, it had to turn away 518 babies because of the lack of staffed cots. In fact, the unit had to be closed to new admissions as recently as 3 October, which is one of 71 days in the past six months in which that situation arose. More alarmingly, I have been advised thatSt. George's is currently 27 nurses short of the standard set by BAPM, if it is to achieve the level 3 target of one nurse caring for no more than one child.
	I realise that resources in the NHS are finite, but it is clear that the lack of national nursing standards and of a national focus mean that local trusts and PCTs are not giving neonatal units the funding that they require. When difficult choices about the allocation of resources need to be made, neonatal units suffer. Research from BLISS found that only 3 per cent. of units in the UK can provide one-to-one nursing for premature babies in intensive care. It estimates the nursing shortfall to be about 2,700, including 540 in London alone. Moreover, a third of the most highly qualified neonatal nurses currently employed in hospitals will retire within the next three years.
	Health professionals and specialists were keen to stress to me that the recruitment and retention of doctors in neonatal units has markedly improved under this Government. However, there is a problem with regard to suitably qualified and experienced neonatal nurses. One of the main reasons for that is the uncertainty generated by the lack of national guidance and primary care trusts not funding staff at the appropriate levels. I hope that my hon. Friend is in a position to reassure the House that the Government are listening to those concerns and will urgently investigate them.
	Many of the health professionals to whom I spoke welcome the Government's proposed reforms in neonatal health care. Nevertheless, they have stressed the need for improved delivery mechanisms within neonatal care. There is a particular problem with a commissioning system that appears disjointed. Neonatal intensive care is deemed to be a "specialist service" and is therefore commissioned by a number of PCTs sharing the investment and associated risk of commissioning funding to this important area. In contrast, level 1 neonatal care is commissioned by the relevant PCTs individually.
	Another problem that the specialists identified is that of insufficient inducements provided by the Department of Health for PCTs to ring-fence the necessary funding for neonatal care, which is compounded by the lack of national standards that I mentioned. I ask my hon. Friend for his help in persuading PCTs of the fundamental importance of neonatal care and dissuading them from reducing the level of service provision in this area. At the same time, I ask him urgently to look into improving the commissioning of neonatal care and the allocation of future funding. One of the things that we have been very good at is starting to involve patient representation and parental involvement within neonatal care. There are now several user involvement projects that recruit, train, and then support parents who wish to become board members for neonatal networks as user representatives. Parents need to be more involved with the commissioning of local community services. I am sure that any support that the Department of Health can provide in this area will reap benefits for all users.
	As hon. Members will know, the Healthcare Commission has a statutory duty to evaluate the performance of healthcare organisations. Unfortunately, it still has not conducted an investigation into neonatal care. Maternity and paediatric services have been thoroughly investigated by the commission, and improvements made as a consequence, but that is not the case with neonatal care. I understand that an audit of neonatal services has just been commissioned and is currently being undertaken by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. However, an audit that merely monitors such variables as transfers and occupancy rates is insufficient and does not compensate for the lack of an investigation. I hope that my hon. Friend will provide the House with a commitment that he will look into the Healthcare Commission's embarking on an examination into neonatal care in the near future.
	The national health service has made significant progress since 1997, with waiting lists and waiting times down significantly. Record numbers of patients are being treated, with record numbers of lives being saved. Neonatal care has also made huge strides, but there is concern among parents, staff and professionals that more can and must be done in this vital area. I am therefore pleased that I have had the opportunity to highlight these issues in the House. I am grateful for the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister and very much look forward to his response.

Michael Penning: I thank the Minister for his generosity. I, too, pay tribute to the work of BLISS, which is a fantastic organisation. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) has done well to mention its work in the House this evening.
	However, if care is contracted to specialist units, it moves increasingly further from where the mums and dads live. Many parents travel a long distance to see their babies in special care units. I would have expected parents from my constituency to have to travel to London to the excellent units there, but some have ended up in Yarmouth or Nottingham. That causes parents grave concern, at a time when anxiety is already high. Is there any way that we can reconsider the configurations so that parents do not have to travel so far?

Ivan Lewis: If I want to continue to enjoy a special relationship with the Chancellor and the Treasury, I should not refer to any financial decisions. I shall simply say that this is a matter for the comprehensive spending review. That is a very boring answer, but it is very wise one from a career point of view.
	We have made a great deal of progress, and parents can feel reassured. However, there are many challenges ahead, and we need to work with organisations such as BLISS and the representatives of other stakeholders to ensure that we get our interventions right. In the way in which we treat parents and babies in those incredibly challenging circumstances, there is nothing more important than that.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Six o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 10 October 2006: in column 268, Division No. 299, insert under Ayes "Plaskitt, Mr. James".